Thread: NYR-Boston
View Single Post
Old
01-14-2004, 05:25 PM
  #10
nyr5186
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans
Country: Madagascar
Posts: 2,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Don't like it a bit.. While making a deal for a young defenseman is a step in the right direction, it's still a case of the Rangers sending three young assets for one..

Poti is buried deep in my NYR doghouse, but he is still a decent talent and a younger one at that, so he has value.. Lundmark is not a star, and I doubt he'll ever be, but he's shown me enough on both ends of the ice to think he'll have a decent NHL career.. Then dealing yet another pick, mid round or not, is another asset squandered..

Boynton is good, no argument, but enough is enough with these deals from the Rangers perspective..
My feelings on Poti are this...When the Rangers first got him, I was fully aware that he was a liability in his own zone. However, he was 25 at the time, and I figured he'd eventually come around and improve defensively, like Leetch and Gonchar have certainly done over time. Even up until this past summer I thought he still had the ability to get better in his own zone. But now, Im fully convinced that what we see from this guy now is what we'll see from him five years from now. He's immensely talented, but just wasnt made out to be a hockey player. He constantly makes mistakes in the defensive zone that any junior hockey player should know not to do instinctively (ex. using his stick instead of his body, chasing the puckcarrier on a two-on-one, pinching at the wrong times, leaving guys wide open in the slot, etc.). Getting rid of him would be a blessing in disguise, as his puckrushing abilities are easily replaceable by AHL fodder such as Bouchard, who isnt as much a defensive liability. I suppose if you put him with a stay-at-home defenseman, keep him off the PK, and use him on the point of the power play, he could be a good asset to a team, but not for the New York Rangers, who are bad enough defensively as is.

As for the whole three-for-one argument, I understand the point, and I'd usually agree with you, but not in this case. Boynton is not another Lindros, or Kovalev, or Carter, or even Poti. He fills a dying need that's been unfilled for a long time, for the short term and long term. Its very rare that you can pick up a 24 year old #2 defensive defenseman. If he was 30 years old, then I would not like this trade, but since he has the potential to be a cornerstone defenseman for a long time, you gotta give up something to get him. Even if Lundmark turns out to be the solid 2nd line forward most people projected him to be (and I still think he will when given a chance), he wouldnt be as valuable as Boynton. And the fact that Boynton has already proven himself, while Lundmark hasnt, theres another reason to make this deal. You dont just expect to pick these guys off trees.

nyr5186 is offline