HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Was Leetch traded for nothing? Review of the 2004 Deadline Trades

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-04-2007, 10:49 AM
  #51
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,604
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
"It is STILL too early to determine winners and losers in these trades from a talent standpoint. "

It's too early for SOME draftees. But the prospects we got in 3/04 are already known. What do you still expect Kondratiev, Immonen, Kozak, Moore, Balej, Helminen?

Do you REALLY think it's too early to judge them?

All the people who are still left to be judged were picks that were acquired. All the prospects we got CAN be judged as busts.
No, it's not too early to judge those players. But it is too early to judge many of the others. Until the careers of some of those prospects have actually begun to play out at the NHL level (or not, if that's how it happens), then it's too early to judge who got the better value in terms of talent.

Again though, the fire sale wasn't as much about what we got back as what it allowed us to do in the future.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2007, 12:18 AM
  #52
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
I love Leetch, always will.

But to me the trade and the "fire-sale" was more about the direction the Rangers decided to go in rather than the long-term results from that trade alone.

Though they really had no choice but to do something at the time, they actually did it and it took some balls to do. It sucked at the time to see Leetch go, and it still hurts, not because he simply left the team but how Sather and the Rangers handled it, not telling him and all. That was handled badly and Leetch still resents that to this day im sure. He was crushed. But maybe that was the only way to get it done.

Either way, from a fans standpoint that will definitely be looked upon as a turning point in Rangers history and in some way Leetch might gain even more honor in his career as a Ranger - when he became somewhat of a sacrificial lamb for what would be the future rejuvenation of the team.

If the Rangers do something special in the next few years (and their prospect depth and "focus" has already made that leap) I think that moment in time, specifically that trade - will be vindicated. To me its more about that then the progression and ultimate output each prospect achieved.
That's a great way to look at it.

Your right, it was about doing something to signal the end of one era and the begining of another. But those purge moves will yield some very big positives for us IMO.

At the time I also remember thinking "ballsy move by Sather - Maybe there is hope". Or something along those lines. I took some heat from my friends because as much as I was against Sather before the purge, I've been 180 degrees on him afterwords. Since the day they shipped Brian out, things have gotten better for the Rangers.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 01:11 AM
  #53
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,372
vCash: 500
Did the Rangers make out like bandits in the deal? Hardly.

Having said that, I don't think you get a much better deal for a 36-year-old Leetch who was really in the twilight of his career.

Can't say that in the same boat, I don't roll the dice myself.

I think Leetch's legacy overshadows the player he actually was at that point and it stirs up a lot of emotion. The fact is that if I'm the GM of another team, I don't believe I'd even have entertained the thought of coughing up prized prospects at that point.

Obviously you hope some of the kids you get pan out, but I still don't know if the Rangers were going to do much better at that point.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 09:54 AM
  #54
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Did the Rangers make out like bandits in the deal? Hardly.

Having said that, I don't think you get a much better deal for a 36-year-old Leetch who was really in the twilight of his career.

Can't say that in the same boat, I don't roll the dice myself.

I think Leetch's legacy overshadows the player he actually was at that point and it stirs up a lot of emotion. The fact is that if I'm the GM of another team, I don't believe I'd even have entertained the thought of coughing up prized prospects at that point.

Obviously you hope some of the kids you get pan out, but I still don't know if the Rangers were going to do much better at that point.
Yeah, I never thought we'd get much more than a first and a prospect, I thought that deal was good for everyone involved in hindsight, though seeing Leetch go was never gonna be easy.

Good to see you back Edge, hope u had a good summer

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 10:39 AM
  #55
Sad London Ranger
RIP Boogie
 
Sad London Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: london england
Posts: 2,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Sad London Ranger
my take on this is the following

When you have a guy like Leetch who wants to continue to play even though there is no room for him in your squad....you facilitate his transfer. even if it means taking nothing in return.

Leetch's departure should have been dignified. That guy has earned it.

Sad London Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 10:40 AM
  #56
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,465
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by london ranger View Post
my take on this is the following

When you have a guy like Leetch who wants to continue to play even though there is no room for him in your squad....you facilitate his transfer. even if it means taking nothing in return.

Leetch's departure should have been dignified. That guy has earned it.
I don't see how there was no room for Leetch on the squad at that time.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 11:13 AM
  #57
Sad London Ranger
RIP Boogie
 
Sad London Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: london england
Posts: 2,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Sad London Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I don't see how there was no room for Leetch on the squad at that time.
management decided that the team needed to move on. .
we got some decent prospects who didn't work out.

That is as much as we could have expected.

But if Leetch didn't figure in the long term plans, and we know he did not, then he should have been accommodated to move to any team he could play for and wanted to be with regardless of who we got in return.

The argument is not whether he should have remained a life long Ranger. it is whether he was traded for fair value.

My response to that is that Leetch has paid his dues to the franchise many times over and it is not fair from the managemetn to be driving every last bit of value out of the trade for him.

Sad London Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 11:15 AM
  #58
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,465
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by london ranger View Post
management decided that the team needed to move on. You cant argue that we traded Leetch for a player that would possibly become a player of Leetch's equivalent even in the future.

we got some decent prospects which didn't work out.

That is as much as we could have expected.

But if Leetch didn't figure in the long term plans, and we know he did not, then he should have been accommodated to move to any team he could play for and wanted to be with.

The argument is not whether he should have remained a life long Ranger. it is whether he was traded for fair value.

My response to that is that Leetch has paid his dues to the franchise many times over and it is not fair from the managemetn to be driving every last bit of value out of the trade for him.

I guess I don't agree with the statement that Leetch was not in the plans longterm.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 11:18 AM
  #59
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Well, I'm glad we dumped our best defenseman in return for a "sign" that we are changing.

Think back 3.5 years. If someone told you that Leetch will only bring us back a prospect who's barely in our top-10, if that high, wouldn't you have been disappointed? Didn't you hope for more?

Didn't you hope that people like Rucinsky, Simon, Barnaby, DeVries, Nedved and Kovalev would bring something useful back and not just a "sign of change"? Didn't you hope for REAL assets in return?

Didn't you hope that of all the prospects that Sather got, at least ONE would play on the third line or better (Betts is on the 4th line and every other prospect with a chance to make it was drafted with the picks, rather than acquired himself).
First of all, you can't judge the trades based on the players we drafted with those picks. They are separate deals. If we traded Leetch for 157 first round picks, but managed to screw up every one of those picks, does that make the Leetch deal a bad trade? Nope.

Second, I won't debate whether or not you are undervaluing our prospects, but you are certainly overvaluing the players we traded away. Leetch, as much as I love him, was on his last leg. The time he spent in Toronto means nothing since if we still had him, we still weren't making the playoffs that year. The year he played with Boston, we made the playoffs without him. Do you think we would have been a better team with him? Perhaps, but not significantly better. And now he's retired.

All the other players on that list were nothing special. Nedved only played with other czechs and even then only produced every other year. Kovalev has tremendous hockey skills, but little hockey sense. Simon, Barnaby and DeVries are role players and Rucinsky was a train wreck.

Making those deals did more than just net us players and picks. They freed up money and more importantly, freed up roster spots so that we could sign players that better fit the type of team Renney wanted to build. It also created room for young players to get a shot and continue their development at the highest level.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 11:22 AM
  #60
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,465
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
FThe year he played with Boston, we made the playoffs without him. Do you think we would have been a better team with him? Perhaps, but not significantly better.
Not going to say they would have won the Cup, but I do think he would have made a big difference. Remember, one of the moves the Rangers felt they needed to make that season was to get on offensive defenseman (Ozolinsh). Wouldn't it have been better to have Leetch instead of Ozo?

But this is all pure specualtion.

Of course I'm not sure I can be objective when it comes down to talking about the Leetch trade.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 11:28 AM
  #61
Sad London Ranger
RIP Boogie
 
Sad London Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: london england
Posts: 2,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Sad London Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I guess I don't agree with the statement that Leetch was not in the plans longterm.
i go by what I see...agree or not, he was traded....

Sad London Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2007, 11:30 AM
  #62
Sad London Ranger
RIP Boogie
 
Sad London Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: london england
Posts: 2,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Sad London Ranger
and I think its safe to say none of us fans wanted to see him in leafs uniforms.

but we were in a bad way......playoffs missed for the 7th time.

Sad London Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.