View Single Post
10-12-2011, 10:49 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,441
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
Listen me and you have gone at it over the past few months because every single proposal you put out there is, well quite honestly, unfathomable.

But this is me just trying to be civil with you here. Really trying to make you understand the reality of this. Yes Hall, Pajaarvi; they're solid players and yes they make our offense a world better. HOWEVER, you just cant put unproven defenseman out there on NHL ice and expect them to do well.

You say you're NOT expecting anyone to fill McD, Sauer, Girardi's shoes but you're basically implying that you honestly feel they will be a serviceable replacement and we will be able to get by with them when we absolutely will not. Theres just no way, I'm sorry. That's the reality of it. They are not ready. If they were they would've beaten out a Michael Del Zotto who still needs a lot of work on his defensive game, but yet he made the team over them. You cant just throw **** at the board and see what sticks, hoping something does. That's not how you build a contender or simply a competent team in the NHL. There is NO GAIN to this deal. The offensive acquisition does not offset the holes we'd have on defense.

You mention a guy like Gunnarrson from Toronto. First off, can we establish this was a RUMOR. That's all it was. It was as credible as eklund's rumors. There was no reputable source that said this was true. So what are you basing YOUR ASSUMPTIONS off of? On top of that how much more do you want to sacrifice in a trade after you complete the edmonton trade? So basically we're going to deal a bunch of assets just so we can add sexy names like Hall and Pajaarvi, meanwhile opening gigantic holes on our defense. Thus now since we've pushed the threshold this far we have to now make another trade to fix the holes on defense, depleting our entire farm system. It just absolutely does not make sense. You're making a trade with edmonton for the sake of making a trade. Yes they're good players but it is not an organizational need plus it is not a feasible option.

It hurts the organization more than it helps and thats the bottom line. If this can not be anymore clear in an explanation to why your trade proposal, in the nicest way possible for me to say it to you without tearing you apart as usual, JUST WONT WORK.

And I have no idea where you're getting the blackhawks from as trading partners. Again just another ASSUMPTION by YOU that there's going to be some team out there ready to "help" us out. After we go out and steal Erixon from CGY, and sign the big ticket free agent Richards....if we go out and make a deal like this with edmonton and then turn around to try and make another deal to fix the holes on defense; you can bet your ass no team is making a deal with Sather unless they are swindling him. No one is going to feel bad for the Rangers. The fact that we would be so vulnerable and desperate for defense, the asking price in ANY deal would be overpayment.

I'm really not trying to be harsh but it's the same time with everyone of your proposals, they deplete our system and our depth. It's as if you want the sexy name but you dont see the ramifications/consequences from it in other areas of the organization.
I appreciate your civility.
We agree to disagree.

Not all rumors are true. Say Gunnarrson from Toronto is false. The one odd name, the 2012 version of Emminger as a reclamation, any of these would fill one additional spot. The CBH have solidified their situation with Seabrook long term Moved out Campbell and his cap for long term. I understand they have some flexibility and a SMALL NUMBER of extra D prospects. I don't claim to be expert in this area, but believe I'm right on that. It is not preposterous that if there is an advantageous deal to be had they wouldn't consider one of those prospects.

You guys act as if the second of the opening faceoff, our Ds will literally fall flat on their faces, hopelessly outclassed. Sure, a guy like Malkin or Stamkos will give anybody a dressing down, (for which there is Staal-Erixon). But these few aside, I expect our guys to hold the fort ADEQUATELY. It will be a drop of defense and more goals surrendered, but it will be a manageable one.

I strongly disagree with your core premise at the fundamental crux of our disagreement:
"The offensive acquisition does not offset the holes we'd have on defense.".

If any one wants to take a stab at quantifying these subjective conclusions on both sides, feel free.
But I gather these are not just three sexy names.
Clearly, with this firepower, we would have far more control in time of possession than at present. Our power play would be dramatically better.
No less important, while there could be more risk when on defense with other than first pairing (assuming, again, we do not improve that D by trade), we will not only improve on time but at location. The puck will be a whole lot less in our zone than it is now, because our more talented Fs force it longer in both center ice and the opposite (scoring) end.

I'll take the hits and the criticism for the weaknesses of my proposal.
But damn it all to expletive delted hell, please acknowledge FULLY the correct other aspects of this suggestion.

Finally, as to the concern this might be screwing up our farm system, particularly as to any follow up to get those replacment D, let me say this:
my three imports are young guys, so we are mostly trading young bodies for young bodies in the primary deal.

As to anything subsequent, there is a key core I maintained and there are enough left over for follow up or contingency trades.

The core kept includes our Kreider, McIlrath, J.T. Miller, Fasth, McNaught
Given that, and how the Fs on the roster would be well set, I don't consider moving Christian Thomas and others for Ds/d prospects to be a losing proposition. Sure, there may be SOME inclination to swindle Sather, as you suggest. But that is immediately DEFEATED by ... competition.

If 2 teams want Thomas both of course will try to press Sather for a better deal; but at the end of the day, if one does not make an offer at least reasonably attractive, no deal will be made. There is no 'let's screw Sather' movement out there, so the question for another GM is ok, Thomas is available, what are the bids, what can I offer to make the winning bid? Plus, we no longer have the more difficult task of trading Thomas + in a large package with his value as a quarter or so of a Tarasenko. Instead we are trading him relative to a Gunnarson or better.
Christian Thomas + X for Barret Jackman + Y. Much easier, yes?
Is Tutin 2.0 so unthinkable? Come on.

If we did my deal, and then got 2 minimally decent hold the fort Ds like Roszival plus a 3rd in exchange for Thomas, do you see how there are ways we CAN make this work?

Again, young elite or potential elite sniper Fs are EXPENSIVE. {plus I did so w/out giving up our best assets including our more valuable Fs}
Second and third pair Ds --- really we have enough third pair in house we only really need to upgrade to 2 for a 2nd pairing --- not cheap giveaways but not expensive by any means.

Don't want to , just want to say I get what you say, but I disagree, please feel free to re-evaluate with more focus on points raised herein. Expect you will still flame on and oppose, but if we don't agree hope you can at least note the positives the second time around.

Last edited by bernmeister: 10-12-2011 at 11:04 AM. Reason: content clarification
bernmeister is offline