View Single Post
Old
11-10-2003, 10:28 AM
  #28
Potter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bridgewater NJ
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potter
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469
first off i think it is funny that getting rid of ulanov is considered such a great move when sather shouldn't have signed ulanov in the first place. so you screw up and sign him and then get rid of him, you are now even. you didn't make a good move, you just undid a really bad one...

second, no one is saying that we shouldn't have traded for bure just that we gave up too much considering how desparate the panthers were to deal him and since we were the only possible trade partner. giving up a 1st round pick was WAY too much...even if that meant we had to keep ulanov and buy him out, a team that has missed the playoffs 6 straight years should almost never under any circumstances trade away their first round pick (the only exception would be if you are getting a young franchise player like joe thornton in return)

and shouldn't the fact that no one else wanted bure tell you something?? other teams could have afford his salary but they wanted no part of a one-dimensional player who's game is based on speed with 2 bad knees...bure's knees didn't get bad after the trade, they have been bad for years...isn't it funny how anytime there is a player that only the rangers want and they get him in a 'steal' the guy turns out to be a bust, and whenever another team wants someone the rangers miss out and the guy does great...

at the very least given bure's history of knee problems, sather could have protected himself by putting in a clause that said if bure got hurt we'd get the 1st rounder back...but that would require thinking about how something effects the team beyond the next 2 months. but if the rangers ever did that they would be unloading guys instead of bring in overpaid, injury-prone, past-their-prime vets

NYR469 that makes alot of sense and you make a great point. And I did think Sather learned alot from the Bure mistake and we can see that in the Kovalev deal.

I just remember when the deal was being talked about and Yorks name was being thrown around. I was just excited to see that we lost nothing immediate, first rounder was tough to swallow and Bure was a huge risk... me personally, thats just the kind of risk I would take every once in a while, mainly cause I love the way Bure plays. He's no Selke winner but he can open up a game or change it every night. He's the kind of play that takes you out of your seat, and for the rest of the season he was a machine.

But NYR469 you were right and sold me on your idea very well. The first rounder was too much. Novak and a second would be more reasonable. A first rounder has too much value. However, the Ulanov thing I really dont agree with you about. No one wanted to COME CLOSE TO ULANOV. Dallas was in there for the Bure trade, so were LA and the Avs too. Ulanov was so bad that no one would have wanted anything to do with him. The signing at the time didnt seem like a brilliant move, but no one could have predicted he'd be that bad. So loosing Ulanov really was more of a plus in my opinon than it was in yours.

But great analysis. Sold me.

Potter is offline