View Single Post
03-27-2011, 05:00 PM
Sent to HF Minors
Beacon's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,177
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
I understand your logic of thinking, but we can keep our younger players while still acquiring a big money contract.
For another year maybe, not much longer. Plus, are you sure you are acquiring the right player today? How do you know what the need will be when the team is hitting its peak in a couple of years?

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
And the fact of the matter is, chances are we're not going to be able to keep all of our young players due to cap reasons down the line anyway.
This contradicts the first statement. And you don't make things worse just because you can't make them perfect. It's one thing if we have to trade one kid who's about to get his pay-day. It's another if we are in a desperate mode trying to get rid of 3-4 players. In the first case, we can still get full value in inexpensive young players and draft picks. In the second case, we are stuck trading Jagr for Beech.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
Also, we can win Hank now. We're 1-2 great players away.
If these players are Crosby and Green, yes. If these players are Brad and Kaberle, not so much.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
BR could be one of them. To just wait a few years, lock up all our younger players, and then see is wasting his time, and could potentially be disastrous (what if AA has hit his ceiling and Stepan doesn't progress much more? Kreider's a bust? etc.)
It's not a waste of time. You have to see what you have. If these players remain where they are, then we at least know that they will be low-paid hustlers, and we can go out and sign someone at that point. Someone who actually fits into the scheme.

The fact that these players are unknown is reason to wait, not to sign the first marquee free agent we can get our hands on.

You strike iron while its hot, and it's not hot yet.

In a couple of years, if the youth will progress more or less as expected, you will see me advocating youth-for-age trades. Why? Because iron will be hot then.

I will get hammered for it on this board by everyone who is just in love with youth and people will claim that I'm impatient, etc. - just the opposite of what they say about me now.

But the reality is that I don't love either youth or age - I love Stanley Cups. We ain't winning now, with or without Brad.

Wait a couple years. Let's have the kids mature and then we can go for the Cup when we actually have a reasonable chance of winnable.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
You can't just assume in a few years he'll still be great and then we can make it.
You have to go with odds. Today, the team isn't winning the Cup. Brad will be the difference between being a first round underdog and a first round favorite. But in the second round and every round after that, we'll again be underdogs.

The odds are just in our favor today.

In a couple of years, Lundqvist will likely be as healthy as today, and more (playoff) experienced.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
What if no great players are on the market/trading block that season?
This is youthful thinking right there. "Oh my God, what if today is the only opportunity?!" Every year there are good UFAs and/or good players like Heatley and Kovalchuk available via trade. I don't remember a single year when no good player was available through either free agency or trade or both.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
Another season wasting the King away. He gets hurt in 2 years? Then the prior 2 years were a waste.
You are basing this on the Rangers having a chance to win today. Obviously if they had a chance to win today, I would be all for getting Brad. Nobody wants to pass on a chance to win another Stanley Cup.

The issue is that we are not winning the Cup next year, so we are wasting nothing.

Brad may bring us another round win in the playoffs, but who cares? Do you remember how far the Rangers went in 2006? 1996? 1991? And even if you remember, does it really matter anymore?

Ultimately the only thing that matters is the Stanley Cup. Everything else will become a gray memory that nobody cares about.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
I'm not pro-Richards at all nor am I a "WIN NOW THROW MONEY EVERYWHERE" guy, but I would hope that if an elite player wants to come here (for his market value/contract) in a position of need, we do it.
Except that we don't know what our position/style of need will be when we are ready to contend.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
We need offense, the last few games has shown that greatly.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Kreider becomes a point per game producer and Thomas becomes a superstar goal scorer. He didn't score 100+ points and over 55 goals this year for no reason.

How do you know Step won't be an elite center? He's played carefully in his rookie season, but how do you know he's not the 80-point center we need? The odds are better of that than that Lundqvist will suffer a career-ruining injury.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
Defense has been solid.
Using your earlier logic about Lundqvist getting injured, Staal can collide with Girardi, and the team's defense will suddenly be terrible.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
Adding an elite center makes us contenders.
Only if you think that there are 10 teams that are contenders. If you think only 3-4 teams are real contenders and the rest are over-optimistic pretenders, no way does Brad make us a contender.

Originally Posted by NY Lito View Post
Why adding that now and having the kids grow around that player as opposed to waiting for the kids to grow and add him then makes no sense.
You don't build around free agents, hoping the kids will fill the rest of the holes. Ask Neil Smith, he'll tell you about his strategy from 1995 to 2000.

All the top teams get a core that is homegrown, then add a few players.

Everyone remembers Messier now, but by the time he arrived, we already had (in the NHL or in the system) Leetch, Richter, Zubov, Kovalev, Nemchinov, Amonte, Weight, Turcotte, Patrick, Nicholls, etc.

Neil Smith flipped a bunch of them, but had he not made a move for Messier, I think the team would still probably have won the Cup.

C: Weight, Nicholls, Turcotte, Nemchinov
LW: Graves, Zamuner, Kris King, Gilbert/Domi
RW: Gartner, Kovalev, Steven Rice, Kocur

Leetch - Patrick
Zubov - Lowe
Karpovtsev - Wells


I get that not the whole team is homegrown, but this is about what it would have looked like without most of the major trades for Messier, Beukeboom, Larmer, Tikkanen, Matteau, Noonan, Anderson, etc. (Graves was seen as a rather minor acquisition of a third liner at the time.)

I say this team wins the Stanley Cup sooner or later, and without Neil's stupid trades, it would probably have won more than one Stanley Cup.

Last edited by Beacon: 03-28-2011 at 02:36 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote