View Single Post
Old
01-20-2012, 03:15 PM
  #31
Dfence033
Registered User
 
Dfence033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocarina View Post
Look, you seem to like the guy, and there isn't anything wrong with that. But the reality is, we are stacked on D in terms of options. He would be behind Stralman, Bickel, Erixon, Bell and maybe even Valentenko or Parlett on the depth chart. I don't see the point of actually going out and giving up anything of value for him. As a throw-in to a larger trade, fine, whatever, but he's not the type of guy you target.

Also, it's Tim Erixon, not Jan. And I think it's kinda funny you mention him maybe being on a hot streak. But don't you think it's kind of odd that despite his numbers in the AHL, he hasn't gotten a chance? Fact is, he isn't good enough defensively. I remember when we called him up briefly, Hartford fans were mystified. They said that he had been bad for most of the year.
I actually just realized I was using Daddy's name for him. He isn't good enough defensively YET, but he hasn't adapted to NHL ice, either. His calling card has always been his defense, not his offense. The fact that he is producing offensive is just an added plus. Again, everyone keeps bringing up "giving up something of value." How much value does a 6th-round draft-choice really have? I'm not saying he is the #1 must-get target the Rangers should be after, but if you can make a subtle move like that (McD being a throw-in to Gomez deal-esque), you can set up quite a future for yourself, and if it can be more than once for minimal-to-no cost, you do it, that's all i was saying. If it's a negligible cost, would you want the Rangers to consider getting him back? Or is the fanbase still so sour on him for being drafted over another player that it'd just be worthless to them to try? Seems to be most lean towards the latter.

Dfence033 is offline   Reply With Quote