Thread: Savard....
View Single Post
Old
12-12-2003, 03:50 PM
  #26
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
1. I'm sick of hearing how Jamie has been brought along. He played plenty of time in junior and in Hartford. Granted the Rangers could have given him more ice time this year but he hasn't exactly played that great. It's not like he sat every night. It's not like we rushed him up or never gave him a chance.
The fact remains that no other team in the league would bring a player along that way. Yes they were patient, the problem with the rangers often isnt their ability to develop a kid in the minors or juniors but rather once it comes time to bite the bullet and let him learn and grow at the NHL level. Cmon barnaby you can go through his icetime to see prove why this kid hasnt gone anywhere. whenever he had a game where he played good, he got LESS icetime the next game. Yet look at a guy like Hlvac who made mistake after mistake, again and again. You cannot show me another team in this league that doesn't at least reward their kids. A friends mother used to have a saying "When someone says everyone in the world has done them wrong, maybe it's time that somone look in the mirror". Same with the rangers, after 6 and possibly 7 years of mediocre play and player development, maybe just maybe not all of these prospects were busts. Maybe, just maybe there is something wrong with the approach.
Quote:
2. I didnt like it then and I dont like it now. Hlavac was in the perfect spot at the perfect time. It was obvious Savard was the better player. We have Nedved dont we? Maybe had we kept Savard, Nedved could be gone and we could have gone a different direction getting wingers instead. Maybe Savard had a lousy attitude but he was worth more then moving up two slots. Look at Philly, they moved farther up at the top to get Pitkanen for less then Savard. It's not like we moved up from the 3rd to the 1st pick. We moved from 9 to 11 or something like that.
But at the time it was a solid move and at the time savard's value wasnt as high. that's what a lot of people are forgetting. 99 was seen as a deep draft and a 5'10, 180 pounds center with a bad attitude fetched a scoring winger who needed incentive to come to north america, it also brought an extra pick {which became aufiero}, and very few people would take saprykin over lundmark. and at the time a very big complain was this team was size. So you wanna have york and savard as a solution? i dont think so. And not for anything isn't one of the biggest problems on this team character? so you hold onto savard. Sometimes, though the fans on this board are generally more knowledge, i just dont get what direction they'd put the team in. your viewpoint takes two problems in two different seasons and doesnt solve either problem those teams face. not that the rangers approach worked either, but i dont even see the possibility in that scenario.

Quote:
3. Who cares if York as coming along. Why trade other players for that. You can't have two young centermen? Cant try one on the wing? Cant let him crack the lineup then deal Nedved?
At the time nedved was coming off a solid season and after losing gretz you are proposing that the rangers take a gamble and go the rest of the season with three centers who had all off a combined 130 some odd games under their belt? Two 5'10, 180 pound centers and a 19 year old raw kid named malhotra? That would have been a disaster. On top of that no one has managed to answer the question of just how badly savards attitude was. and with the current state of the team, that's like lighting a match in a gasoline factory.

Edge is offline