View Single Post
Old
10-26-2011, 01:41 PM
  #179
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
Never said Hawks would do us any favors.
But my recollection as to they still have some D prospects even after moving Campbell is correct. It is not 100% clear, but in discussion at the Chicago board, there was some agreement, albeit a minimal one in population sample, that a deal could be centered around Christian Thomas for Lalonde +

It is not likely we can get Dylan Olsen but that may be possible if we are willing to step up and add.

Whether or not we should is another story. But we may have options as I said would likely be the case.

You seem to be advocating we don't trade unless we can swindle. Is that your inference?

bernmeister is offline