Thread: Proposal: Trade Proposals: July-August
View Single Post
Old
08-25-2012, 08:13 AM
  #137
petejudge
Registered User
 
petejudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
i don't get how you can say that staal is the best shutdown defenseman in the league and then in the same breath say that he's not elite. you and i are both in agreement that he is the best player at doing what he does, but you somehow don't see that as being elite? i don't get it.

i'm not saying that adding another top 6 winger to the team is a bad thing, the problem is that there aren't enough centers to go around. it's about what you lose to bring in something that isn't a need. this team NEEDS another center, and badly, so why would you go ahead and trade our 2nd best center? we're not getting any better at that position and unless you're willing to trade someone like hagelin, kreider, or gaborik for another high-end center that position is going to be a huge issue. look at teams that have been good over the last few years, center is the key position for them. pittsburgh has been able to have enormous success because they have the 2 best centers in the world. if you have a good core of centers, i think you can build your offense out from that.

adam larsson would have been a 3rd pairing guy for the rangers at best this season. i AM sure of that. he would have to beat out either girardi or stralman to make it above the bottom pairing and i don't think that's a possibility. larsson and stralman had the same exact numbers as far as points go, except larsson was a -7 and stralman was a +9. if i'm a coach i'm choosing the veteran who plays better in his own end at this point in his career. i'm judging that by the eye test too. there's a good reason why larsson was a healthy scratch through almost the entire playoffs for the devils. aside from stralman, torts also liked the added toughness bickel brought, so you better believe that bickel would get some starts in there over larsson

now going forward i fully believe larsson could be a top pairing guy, but your idea that the rangers can't win now is unbelievable. this is a team that was one win away from a president's trophy, and 2 wins from the stanley cup finals. this is a team that DID dominate most of the league. the rangers were 6-0 against a very good flyers team this season. they overcame some crazy road trips to start the season and still put up great numbers.

the rangers were 13th in the league in goals scored. of the 12 teams above them, 3 of them didn't make the playoffs (tampa, toronto, san jose). 6 of them lost in the first round (boston, pittsburgh, vancouver, ottawa, detroit, chicago). 2 of those 3 teams that made it to the 2nd round lost their series' convincingly to teams that were better defensively (nashville, philly). the only team that broke the mold was the devils, who made the finals and lost to a team that reminds me a lot of how the rangers are built.

so clearly if we're going to destroy our defense in favor of more goals scored, there has to be a reason right? our offense being above average with a stellar defense isn't enough? after the devils, every team in the 2nd round of the playoffs was worse offensively than the rangers through the regular season. think about that. EVERY TEAM. EAST AND WEST.

that's why this evander kane trade is absurd. this is a team that already was above average offensively, in a league that has proven that the best offense doesn't win, and has added one of the premier goal scorers to help improve the offense even more. the defense, which was in my opinion the best in the league, has remained the same (except probably is better now with a healthier staal and possibly a healthy sauer at some point), and the goaltending situation has remained the same.


Last edited by petejudge: 08-25-2012 at 11:22 PM.
petejudge is offline   Reply With Quote