HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Should the Rangers... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=82763)

pld459666 06-08-2004 01:03 PM

Should the Rangers...
 
sing any UFA's or should they stay away altogether?

allrevvedup25 06-08-2004 01:05 PM

the should sign some UFA but only ones that fit needs and fill holes!! No big time signings are needed!!

Fletch 06-08-2004 01:11 PM

Yup...
 
how many and at what position is a question, though. Even with youth being fairly served, you may be able to make an argument for a center to be signed, an enforcer, perhaps a top six winger and maybe even a defenseman or goalie. Sounds like a lot, but I think that before July 1 and after the draft, we'll see a better picture of this organization and will be better able to determine where the holes that need filling exist.

Larry Melnyk 06-08-2004 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
how many and at what position is a question, though. Even with youth being fairly served, you may be able to make an argument for a center to be signed, an enforcer, perhaps a top six winger and maybe even a defenseman or goalie. Sounds like a lot, but I think that before July 1 and after the draft, we'll see a better picture of this organization and will be better able to determine where the holes that need filling exist.

I'm agreeing with Fletch..I think we will need to sigh a TOP-6 forward, a physical defensive D-man, and a goalie. And then I think we will still have to deal a prosppect and/or picks for a young NHLer..Even with these moves, the team can still possibly have 6-7 forwards and 3-4 D-men of the young variety...What year this happens is another story...

So, basically, that's neither of the above choices because these players will be more then the support type...It will be the youngsters supporting them as they learn the ropes and get their skates wet...

Fish 06-08-2004 01:58 PM

I don't know the Rangers would have 23 players, or at least have them and another 18 for Hartford. I think there's no doubt they'll need to sign some players....

Knight229 06-08-2004 05:09 PM

Barnaby and Simon would be a good start.

Brooklyn Ranger 06-09-2004 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight229
Barnaby and Simon would be a good start.

Why would either of them--and especially Simon--even consider coming back here? Simon is back in a town where he first had success and fits extremely well into the Flames game plan now. Plus, his team came within one goal of winning the Stanley Cup. Very honestly, he would have to care only about the money if he signed back here. And in that situation I wouldn't want him.

Barnaby has never won a Stanley Cup. He got back into the playoffs for the first time since 2000 and like Simon showed that he could help a good team become better. He certainly sounded committed to re-signing with the Rangers when he was first traded--and I would welcome him back if he was crazy enough to sign on again--but, there may very well be competition and they may very well be able to offer him a better situation than coming back here.

Edge 06-09-2004 12:29 AM

I dunno about singing to any free agents {As the topic suggests} but I would probably sign one or two c-level guys simply because not all these kids should be thrown to the lions in the NHL.

NYR469 06-09-2004 12:43 AM

they have to sign a couple guys because you can't go into the season with holik, jagr, kaspar and 15 youngsters...more realistic is a 50/50 split

the key is that the guys brought in are good character guys and are brought in to complement and teach the kids, not take ice time from them...for example signing rucinsky so rucinsky-holik-jagr can play 24:00/night is a bad thing and not what we need. but bring back rucinsky to play on a line with lundmark & balej could be a very positive thing for those 2...

the idea is to create the most positive learning environment possible for the kids that make the club and surrounding them with quality vets as well as the right coaches is a huge part of that...

and i'm sure people will say 'if we are rebuilding we should have as many kids as possible' but while i'd love to have a team full of kids as i mentioned they need to have some vets around those kids and also we should keep in mind that to start last year we had 1 player under the age of 25 on the roster. so if next year we have 10 or so thats a HUGE improvement...

remember the whole team isn't going to be rebuilt overnight...so next year you get 10 into the lineup getting regular ice time plus a few callups and hopefully atleast 6-7 become permanent fixtures...then the next year you add some more, etc

vbox81 06-09-2004 12:48 AM

I think the 50/50 split brings in too many veterans. I think we need a veteran presence on the 4th line for toughness (2 guys here) and barnaby for the 3rd line if he'll return. other than that, i'm comfortable on the forwards (maybe a top line center at a reasonable price. conroy would be perfect). I'd also have no problem bringing back Mironov or a younger version of him who is still a veteran (29-year old area, not 34) to help Kasper anchor the blueline. In goal, Dunham and McLennan can handle it while the youngsters develop and switch spots with McLennan in the second half.

If we are going to rebuild, then do it. Give us vets that will lead by example and be hard working pride-filled players, not take over the team for their own benefit.

Brooklyn Ranger 06-09-2004 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR469
they have to sign a couple guys because you can't go into the season with holik, jagr, kaspar and 15 youngsters...more realistic is a 50/50 split

the key is that the guys brought in are good character guys and are brought in to complement and teach the kids, not take ice time from them...for example signing rucinsky so rucinsky-holik-jagr can play 24:00/night is a bad thing and not what we need. but bring back rucinsky to play on a line with lundmark & balej could be a very positive thing for those 2...

the idea is to create the most positive learning environment possible for the kids that make the club and surrounding them with quality vets as well as the right coaches is a huge part of that...

and i'm sure people will say 'if we are rebuilding we should have as many kids as possible' but while i'd love to have a team full of kids as i mentioned they need to have some vets around those kids and also we should keep in mind that to start last year we had 1 player under the age of 25 on the roster. so if next year we have 10 or so thats a HUGE improvement...

remember the whole team isn't going to be rebuilt overnight...so next year you get 10 into the lineup getting regular ice time plus a few callups and hopefully atleast 6-7 become permanent fixtures...then the next year you add some more, etc

We have a number of other players who will be on the team who are not anywhere near being rookies besides the "big three" that you mention. There is Poti and Rachuncek on defense and there are a number of younger forwards--including players like Josh Green and Dan LaCouture who will most likely be back too. One or both goaltenders are going to have significant experience in the NHL. There are also a number of players in the system who while not experienced at the NHL level, have significant AHL experience and will view this a real possibility to break through to the next level. And of course there are the prospects who played quite well in their NHL tryouts who should be given every chance to make the team.

Will there be some players brought in to complement/suppliment the players already here? Probably, otherwise there will be absolutely no depth. But, given the state of the organization--total chaos pretty much and very little likelihood of an early turnaround--the bunch that will be available will be players who have worn out their welcome elsewhere, bubble-players who never got a real chance to play in the NHL and outright rejects who are looking to jump-start their careers.

We can talk all we want about the need to have a good mix of experienced players and youth. But let's not forget that the organization is supposed to be rebuilding from the ground up. We will look more like an expansion team next season than anything else. That, in and of itself, limits the type of players we can sign....Unless we go looking for overthehillmercenaries who are willing to play anywhere if the price is right.

Either way, we are going to suck. Might as well do it right. :mad:

Cynical TyranT 06-09-2004 05:20 AM

I would agree that we could definitely use a player or two... but not enough to really twist up the pot too much.

I'd say Nylander would be a good addition as a playmaking center...

We could take Barnaby back. I dont think I need to go into details there...

I seriously wouldn't be against picking up Bondra, either, if we can get him cheap enough. He's the master on a power play, and could teach the kids some stuff...

Im a big fan of picking up Mike Ricci. He's got one of the biggest hearts/drives in the game, plays a responsible game, and can lead a team.

Magnus Arvedsson would be a good pick up for the LW slot. I forgot to mention Bondra can play the LW also... Arvedsson's a workhorse, he'd be good on a Jagr line.

Ideally, we could pull some strings and manage to snag up Mark Bell or something too. But that is extremely doubtful, so, Martin Erat?

We'd land Niedermayer in a perfect world.

Maybe even Aucoin.

There are a lot of Type II's this year...

Demitra, Niinimaa... none of which are happening!

Anyways, just a few thoughts on potential guys

jas 06-09-2004 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynical TyranT
I would agree that we could definitely use a player or two... but not enough to really twist up the pot too much.

I'd say Nylander would be a good addition as a playmaking center...

We could take Barnaby back. I dont think I need to go into details there...

I seriously wouldn't be against picking up Bondra, either, if we can get him cheap enough. He's the master on a power play, and could teach the kids some stuff...

Im a big fan of picking up Mike Ricci. He's got one of the biggest hearts/drives in the game, plays a responsible game, and can lead a team.

Magnus Arvedsson would be a good pick up for the LW slot. I forgot to mention Bondra can play the LW also... Arvedsson's a workhorse, he'd be good on a Jagr line.

Ideally, we could pull some strings and manage to snag up Mark Bell or something too. But that is extremely doubtful, so, Martin Erat?

We'd land Niedermayer in a perfect world.

Maybe even Aucoin.

There are a lot of Type II's this year...

Demitra, Niinimaa... none of which are happening!

Anyways, just a few thoughts on potential guys

Nylander?? I'd rather just re-sign Lindros.

NYR469 06-09-2004 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vbox81
I think the 50/50 split brings in too many veterans.

be realistic how many 1st and 2nd year skaters do you expect on the team? you don't think that having 10 would be a step in the right direction? and i'm not even counting under-25 year olds with experience like rachunek and betts which raises the number to 12, which is 2/3 of the skaters in the lineup...

bottomline is whether you make the split 50/50, 60/40 or whatever, the idea is we need a nice balance of youth and vets...

and if you are wondering where i got the 50/50 idea from...this is a general breakdown of how i'd like to see vets filled thru the lineup: 2 vets on the 1st line, 1 vet on each of lines 2-4, and 3 vets on the blueline (rachunek counts as 1 and each pair having a vet & a kid together)...that is 8 vets leaving 10 skater spots open for kids to fight over. 10 kids out of 20 (including the goalie) is 50%

and also consider that not all the kids are ready and shouldn't be thrown to the wolves, not to mention that the kids need to play and some of them will be better off getting big minutes in hartford than little time in ny...and lastly lets not forget that just because you start the year with 8 or so vets that doesn't mean you have to end it that way. if throughout the year a number of kids show they are ready for promotions (either from hartford or simply bigger roles in ny) i'd be all for moving any of the vets when those kids are ready

NYR469 06-09-2004 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
We have a number of other players who will be on the team who are not anywhere near being rookies besides the "big three" that you mention.

i didn't count those guys because with the exception of poti (who i think will be gone before next season) none of them are under contract...

if you think a guy like lacouture can fill 1 of those veteran spots then great re-sign him...i'm not saying that we need to sign 7 new ufas. we could sign 2 or 3, then fill spots with some of the guys you mentioned.

vbox81 06-09-2004 08:07 AM

NYR, I just didn't like the notion of making a 50/50 split, didn't consider the numbers of it. But I don't want a vet on every line. I think the 2nd line should, somehow, consist of 3 young players we think can be scorers. Make them work and learn together and try to develop a scoring line that lasts more than half the freakin' season (FLY? Czechmates? Jagr-Holik-Rucinsky?).

Also, I see the need for only 2 vet dmen. 3rd pair will hardly play anyway, so why waste the money?

Finally, we have enough young guys on this roster now that we can swap out those that are not deemed ready ("thrown to the wolves"). I'm not looking for a 40 goal scorer, I'm just looking for hard workers who keep a near-even +/- and show an increasing ability to score.

rnyquist 06-09-2004 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vbox81
NYR, I just didn't like the notion of making a 50/50 split, didn't consider the numbers of it. But I don't want a vet on every line. I think the 2nd line should, somehow, consist of 3 young players we think can be scorers. Make them work and learn together and try to develop a scoring line that lasts more than half the freakin' season (FLY? Czechmates? Jagr-Holik-Rucinsky?).

Also, I see the need for only 2 vet dmen. 3rd pair will hardly play anyway, so why waste the money?

Finally, we have enough young guys on this roster now that we can swap out those that are not deemed ready ("thrown to the wolves"). I'm not looking for a 40 goal scorer, I'm just looking for hard workers who keep a near-even +/- and show an increasing ability to score.

While I do agree with you to a point, here's my two cents. I do feel that every line should have a kid, whether they're 18 or 23, every line should consist of a kid, with the last 3 have AT LEAST 2 kids. IMO a guy like Prucha who showed amazing chemistry with Jagr should be given the chance to play with Jagr and not just sign a guy like Rucinsky and automatically give him a spot. Its notions like this that hurt the team when a guy like Hlavac would come in and take a spot from a guy like Lundmark or Moore who easily outplayed him but was never given the opportunity. I do feel that if we had a vet on every line (2 on the 1st, 1 on the 2nd,3rd and 4th) we'd give each line some leadership, AND youthful vigor. Also I would like to see the defence pairing have one vet, and one kid. If we kept Rachunek, Kasparitis and then even signed Mironov again we could pair Kondratiev, Tjutin and Pock with each, giving each a mentor. IMO it keeps all the kids relaxed knowing a vet is with them, but it also could be a teamwork building thing, as Tjutin credited Mironov for a lot of his success as being a cool head on the ice and on the road.

Bluenote13 06-09-2004 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnyquist
While I do agree with you to a point, here's my two cents. I do feel that every line should have a kid, whether they're 18 or 23, every line should consist of a kid, with the last 3 have AT LEAST 2 kids. IMO a guy like Prucha who showed amazing chemistry with Jagr should be given the chance to play with Jagr and not just sign a guy like Rucinsky and automatically give him a spot. Its notions like this that hurt the team when a guy like Hlavac would come in and take a spot from a guy like Lundmark or Moore who easily outplayed him but was never given the opportunity. I do feel that if we had a vet on every line (2 on the 1st, 1 on the 2nd,3rd and 4th) we'd give each line some leadership, AND youthful vigor. Also I would like to see the defence pairing have one vet, and one kid. If we kept Rachunek, Kasparitis and then even signed Mironov again we could pair Kondratiev, Tjutin and Pock with each, giving each a mentor. IMO it keeps all the kids relaxed knowing a vet is with them, but it also could be a teamwork building thing, as Tjutin credited Mironov for a lot of his success as being a cool head on the ice and on the road.


We wouldn't have to worry about any of this if there was a coach here that actually knew what he was doing.

Thats it, a good coach, what a revelation ! :highclap:

True Blue 06-09-2004 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnyquist
IMO a guy like Prucha who showed amazing chemistry with Jagr should be given the chance to play with Jagr and not just sign a guy like Rucinsky and automatically give him a spot.

There are 2 problems with your thinking. First of all, Prucha has yet to play a game in North America, so isn't it just a little early to hand out a spot on the top line to him yet? Now, let's take this a step further. Let's say we just hand over a 1st line spot to Prucha. What happens if Prucha is a bust (a possibility since the kid is tiny and has yet to step onto the ice at even an AHL level, let alone an NHL level)? Now what? Now you have even more holes in your lineup.
You need to sign a few vets, but you just cannot hand them over spots. If the yutes perform better than the vets in camp, that's one thing. Then they should be given every opportunity to play the top lines, as we ARE supposed to be rebuilding. However, if said yutes show that they are not ready, then someone like Rucinsky would be a perfect linemate to a Jagr and give us a semblence of a top line (at least enough to get the other teams attention).

in the hall 06-09-2004 01:02 PM

the only player i'd want to sign as a UFA is Pronger

if he is traded for Holik, then i wouldn't mind signing Modano as i feel both those guys would benefit us in our rebuild mode.. Pronger is still in his prime and is a rarity in the league so he would help us even more in the future

i'm over my Barnaby love, it was great while he was here but we have more then enough depth to take over

i feel confident that this team can perform well with a bunch of rookies, of course this depends a lot on the coaches but we do have quite a few advanced prospects it seems

Fish 06-09-2004 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
There are 2 problems with your thinking. First of all, Prucha has yet to play a game in North America, so isn't it just a little early to hand out a spot on the top line to him yet? Now, let's take this a step further. Let's say we just hand over a 1st line spot to Prucha. What happens if Prucha is a bust (a possibility since the kid is tiny and has yet to step onto the ice at even an AHL level, let alone an NHL level)? Now what? Now you have even more holes in your lineup.
You need to sign a few vets, but you just cannot hand them over spots. If the yutes perform better than the vets in camp, that's one thing. Then they should be given every opportunity to play the top lines, as we ARE supposed to be rebuilding. However, if said yutes show that they are not ready, then someone like Rucinsky would be a perfect linemate to a Jagr and give us a semblence of a top line (at least enough to get the other teams attention).

The term "holes" is relative. First off you have to determine what the motivation is next season...are you looking to win the cup, make the playoffs, be competitive, or develop for the future...figure that out and then you can decide who you give spots out to.

Obviously if it's winning the cup, then you're going to have to overhaul the roster...free agents galore. If it's to make the playoffs, then again you're going to have to probably add a number of free agents to "protect" against a possible failure of a younger players.

If it's to be competitive or develop for the future then what does it matter? Go where the potential is and try playing some of these young guys in and then add players who are going to help make those younger players successful.

For instance, Jagr might actually be able to help ease the way not from his teaching ability but from his scoring...help build up confidence for a guy like Prucha.

But if you're taking the latter route you also have to be patient, much more so than what the Rangers have been in the past. A single game, nor month nor even season makes or breaks a player...

True Blue 06-09-2004 02:10 PM

Fish, I understand what you are saying, BUT
 
there's a BIG difference between saying that this is a rebuilding year and throwing ALL caution to the wind by throwing young players on the ice, wether they are ready or not and playing only 4 vets in a lineup and rebuilding the right way.
To me, the goal is to play hard, develop a system, and develop players. Playoffs are gravy. However, I do not think that the proper way to develop players is to just throw them all into the fire and hope and pray that things work out. You can't just had a top line spot to Prucha. The kid has MAJOR size issues. There's a reason that there is only one St. Loius and only one Gionta. Add to that the fact that he has yet to step a toe onto North American ice. You can't enter a season with Jagr & Holik as the only vets amongst forwards.
You cannot just throw youngsters who are not ready onto the ice at the NHL level. And assigning a top line spot to a Prucha may be just that. NO ONE knows if the kid can handle the league. Personally, I have my doubts and I think that his size will be a major issue. He is TINY. Now, that is not to say that I cannot be wrong. However, not to resign a Rucinsky becuase you are praying that Prucha is can step right into first line duties, is incredibly short-sighted.
There WILL be vets signed. But to me, if the kids ouplay the vets in camp, then let said kids play the top lines and said vets play lower lines. However, if the kids prove not to be ready, then you have viable options to play on your top lines.

Edge 06-09-2004 03:49 PM

This is of course considering there is even hockey next season.

If their isn't we might have a nice crop of kids challanging for the 05-06 season.

Bluenote13 06-09-2004 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge
This is of course considering there is even hockey next season.

If their isn't we might have a nice crop of kids challanging for the 05-06 season.

How about the 2005 draft? Looks like we'd get a VERY good player if we stay at #6. I hope there is some kind of season, i'm praying we get a lottery pick next year - Crosby, Brule, maybe Bertram :jump:

Fish 06-09-2004 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
there's a BIG difference between saying that this is a rebuilding year and throwing ALL caution to the wind by throwing young players on the ice, wether they are ready or not and playing only 4 vets in a lineup and rebuilding the right way.
To me, the goal is to play hard, develop a system, and develop players. Playoffs are gravy. However, I do not think that the proper way to develop players is to just throw them all into the fire and hope and pray that things work out. You can't just had a top line spot to Prucha. The kid has MAJOR size issues. There's a reason that there is only one St. Loius and only one Gionta. Add to that the fact that he has yet to step a toe onto North American ice. You can't enter a season with Jagr & Holik as the only vets amongst forwards.
You cannot just throw youngsters who are not ready onto the ice at the NHL level. And assigning a top line spot to a Prucha may be just that. NO ONE knows if the kid can handle the league. Personally, I have my doubts and I think that his size will be a major issue. He is TINY. Now, that is not to say that I cannot be wrong. However, not to resign a Rucinsky becuase you are praying that Prucha is can step right into first line duties, is incredibly short-sighted.
There WILL be vets signed. But to me, if the kids ouplay the vets in camp, then let said kids play the top lines and said vets play lower lines. However, if the kids prove not to be ready, then you have viable options to play on your top lines.

On your first point, I never meant to imply that you go with just 4 veterans (and I don't know what I said to give that impression)...if you read one of my previous posts in this thread you'll note that I said the Rangers are almost obligated to sign some UFA's because they wouldn't be able to ice a team.

I also don't think I ever said throw them to the fire, in fact I said the opposite in providing veterans who can providing help by making it easier to succeed. As to throwing players who aren't ready on the ice...again you're putting words in my mouth, there always needs to be some assessment made of whether a player is ready for the big time. As for Prucha getting the top line spot, it may be the right thing it may not...I don't know, I doubt if anyone knows...yet, but I'm not discounting it out of hand.

You have some doubts yourself about whether he'll ever be an NHLer, I do too...but I'm not ready to assign his (or Moore, Wiseman etc) to the AHL in favor of a veteran yet. I'm more inclined to start off with a Prucha or similar near prospect if he shows in camp and preseason that he has something to offer and then worry about back filling later on if I have to.

The problem with the 23 man roster (well one of them anyway) is that it is very difficult to keep veterans on it. It is much easier to move waiver ineligible players up and down and by signing veterans that makes it more likely they'll get the ice time over the prospects.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.