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

Brooks On Sather's Moves

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-13-2008, 01:19 PM
  #26
FutureGM97
Registered User
 
FutureGM97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Connecticut, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FutureGM97
I really don't see Naslund being Shanny. Naslund is going to be at least 3 years younger than Shanahan is now. His skating alone puts him above and beyond what Shanny has brought to the Ranger table. Obviously Shanny's leadership stuff is unrivaled but as a player on the ice, Naslund will be much more effective offensively. Yes we might miss him on the PK but with Drury, Betts, Callahan, and other lower line players, we can replace him not to mention our improved defense will help in that department as well. Shanny will be missed but Sather brought in pieces that replace him whether or not he was focusing on that.

FutureGM97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 01:31 PM
  #27
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
In what world is Atlanta going to want a 31+ y/o Redden in exchange for one of the best goal scorers in the league? You can bet your ass they'd be asking for Staal.
You're confusing an example with the point of the example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
Besides, I know the real reason people don't like the NT clauses is that then players can't be moved at the deadline for more prospects
And you're opposed to that option?

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 01:42 PM
  #28
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
You're confusing an example with the point of the example.
You're confusing an example with a terrible example.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 01:53 PM
  #29
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
I don't mind Naslund's NMC. It's only 2 years and he can still skate.

Redden's contract could be worse. There's still 21 teams he can be traded to so it's not like we're stuck with him like Toronto was with their players. At least we have some options.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 02:08 PM
  #30
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
Brooks is just sour because his "Jagr + Sundin = Cup" scenario didn't come to fruition. In what world is Atlanta going to want a 31+ y/o Redden in exchange for one of the best goal scorers in the league? You can bet your ass they'd be asking for Staal. Limited NMC is fine. If they really want to move him, theres still 21 other teams that he could go to.

Naslund's NMC isn't an issue either. If he winds up in the same situation Shanny was in this year, who the hell is going to want him anyway? Nobody has signed Shanny as a free agent, so what team was really going to trade for him?
Naslunds has a No Movement Clause not a Not Trade Clause....The difference is you can't waive Naslund and use the free'd up cap space to improve the team...That's a huge deal for a player that's on the decline the past FOUR SEASONS...For a team that still has a roster that's incomplete they have no salary cap room to do anything during the season AND next offseason.....We are one year away from Zherdev and Dubinsky becoming RFA, any increase in the cap will go to retaining players not improving the team...



Why is it assumed that Naslund is going to step in and play great?



For all this talk about how he played with "bad linemates" in a "defensive system" it sounds like excuses to me....Did Vancouver not want to win? The better question is why did Naslund play with these "bad linemates"? Also all this talk about opening the system up on the Rangers might just be talk...Renney with less talent is going to play a wide open game? Huh? Naslund might just find himself back in a defensive system...Things that are said in July might not be practical in October....

Using Shanny is a bad example these are two different players and Shanny was playing on two DEEPER Rangers teams then Naslund is going to find himself on......The only simlarity between Naslund and Shanny is they both had terrible contracts...

I'm no expert but the Rangers seem like they are in bad cap shape for the next few years....

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 02:35 PM
  #31
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 75,166
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
And you're opposed to that option?
Why should this Rangers team be moving vets for prospects?

Do you want us to perpetually rebuild and be a team like the Florida Panthers?

EvilCorporateLawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 02:37 PM
  #32
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 75,166
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
For all this talk about how he played with "bad linemates" in a "defensive system" it sounds like excuses to me....Did Vancouver not want to win? The better question is why did Naslund play with these "bad linemates"? Also all this talk about opening the system up on the Rangers might just be talk...Renney with less talent is going to play a wide open game? Huh? Naslund might just find himself back in a defensive system...Things that are said in July might not be practical in October....
SOS, did you take a look at Vancouver's roster?

They are lacking quite a few forwards that can produce.

This is really such a simple answer to that question that I can't believe you posed it in the first place.

They wanted to spread the offense. Plain and simple. You can't have every offensive player on your team on one line if you want to win.

EvilCorporateLawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 02:46 PM
  #33
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
SOS, did you take a look at Vancouver's roster?

They are lacking quite a few forwards that can produce.

This is really such a simple answer to that question that I can't believe you posed it in the first place.

They wanted to spread the offense. Plain and simple. You can't have every offensive player on your team on one line if you want to win.
Jon,

I guess i'm an idiot...i don't know....but...what type of roster is Naslund joining with his new team?

If the Rangers want to "spread" the offense who is Naslund playing with? The same type of forwards he played with last year? Also how does last year explain the four year decline in production that he's had...his scoring chart looks like an upside down V....why do you think it's going to level off on a new team in a new city with new linemates in a new system?

A NMC clause for a guy that MIGHT end up being an asset to move at the deadline is a bad idea....I don't see any reason to give Naslund a NMC...

The day of the signing it was a one year contract...then it turned into a 2 year contract...now it's a 2 year contract with a NMC....I don't understand it...

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 02:50 PM
  #34
BrianLeetch2
Registered User
 
BrianLeetch2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toms River NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 707
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrianLeetch2 Send a message via MSN to BrianLeetch2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
Jon,

I guess i'm an idiot...i don't know....but...what type of roster is Naslund joining with his new team?

If the Rangers want to "spread" the offense who is Naslund playing with? The same type of forwards he played with last year? Also how does last year explain the four year decline in production that he's had...his scoring chart looks like an upside down V....why do you think it's going to level off on a new team in a new city with new linemates in a new system?

A NMC clause for a guy that MIGHT end up being an asset to move at the deadline is a bad idea....I don't see any reason to give Naslund a NMC...

The day of the signing it was a one year contract...then it turned into a 2 year contract...now it's a 2 year contract with a NMC....I don't understand it...

Naslund playing with Gomez and Zherdev....i wouldnt really call that playing with "Bad Linemates"

BrianLeetch2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 02:52 PM
  #35
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
Naslunds has a No Movement Clause not a Not Trade Clause....The difference is you can't waive Naslund and use the free'd up cap space to improve the team...That's a huge deal for a player that's on the decline the past FOUR SEASONS...For a team that still has a roster that's incomplete they have no salary cap room to do anything during the season AND next offseason.....We are one year away from Zherdev and Dubinsky becoming RFA, any increase in the cap will go to retaining players not improving the team...



Why is it assumed that Naslund is going to step in and play great?



For all this talk about how he played with "bad linemates" in a "defensive system" it sounds like excuses to me....Did Vancouver not want to win? The better question is why did Naslund play with these "bad linemates"? Also all this talk about opening the system up on the Rangers might just be talk...Renney with less talent is going to play a wide open game? Huh? Naslund might just find himself back in a defensive system...Things that are said in July might not be practical in October....

Using Shanny is a bad example these are two different players and Shanny was playing on two DEEPER Rangers teams then Naslund is going to find himself on......The only simlarity between Naslund and Shanny is they both had terrible contracts...

I'm no expert but the Rangers seem like they are in bad cap shape for the next few years....
I'm aware of the difference.
Why is it assumed that Jagr was going to play great? His decline was even more drastic than Naslunds and he was playing for a team that was bending over backwards to accommodate him.

Why was Naslund playing on the 2nd line? The same reason Shanny wasn't playing on the same line with Jagr; to spread out the scoring.

I don't understand how you can keep jumping to the assumption that last years team was a 'deeper' team than last years. You haven't seen the current squad on the ice together yet and already you've determined they're worse-off than last year? The only player that hasn't been 'replaced' is Jagr and he was on a more severe decline than Naslund was.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 02:58 PM
  #36
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,842
vCash: 500
I don't think the Redden deal is as bad as people think. It's similar to what most baseball players have. It still means he can be traded to 21 other teams. I'm pretty certain he wouldn't want to go back to Ottawa after his experience there.

And as for Naslund, most NMCs (or for that matter NTCs) come down to a player's approval where they would be traded. See Ray Bourque and Dan Boyle for examples. Yeah, I don't like them either but I also don't get that much heartburn. If the Rangers were hopelessly out of playoff contention either this year or next, it would be a big enough disaster with or without NMCs/NTCs.

It looks to me like there is a long term plan in place here. Kalinin, Prucha and Mara all expire this year, they will be replaced by younger players and that money will go to Dubinsky & Zherdev extensions. The following year Naslund comes off the books to pay for Staal's extension. And so on. And BTW, the cap will probably continue to increase each year. The question, of course, is whether that plan will yield the desired performance.


Last edited by bobbop: 07-13-2008 at 03:07 PM.
bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 03:09 PM
  #37
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,374
vCash: 500
brooks' opinions are virtually stupid all the way around here in his column today, and i'll go 1-by-1...

1. who the hell complains about "too much depth"? especially when that depth---regardless of how good or bad it is---is filled with moveable contracts? there's not one guy he mentioned whom sather can't move to create space on the roster and/or on the cap.

2. who doesn't complain about ticket prices being raised? everybody does. but it's only good business sense to do it. this team sold out all of its tickets last season, will again this season, and has a lenghthy waiting list. AND they are going to be rennovating the arena in the near future. the better question is why wouldn't they?

3. so drury has a NTC. big deal. his contract runs out at age 35 right? if they really feel he's not worth it they will buy him out long before it expires and it won't hurt the cap. remember buffalo offered more salary IIRC(i'm not sure so don't hold me to it).

4. naslund has a NMC. again, big deal. the NMC is virtually eliminated by his age. considering he'll be 35 when the season begins, what could the rangers do to get rid of him w/o it hurting the cap anyway? the facts are naslund took a $2m paycut from his previous contract, is IMO a player very worthy of a $4m salary based on his past performance and potential...even including the last 3 seasons, and if he's playing that miserably i'm certain that he'll waive this clause to be moved anyway b/c the fans will be on his case constantly unlike what occured with shanahan where the latter quickly earned the fans' trust from day 1 he was on the team. and if naslund is unable to shake the potential boos and jeering he doesn't strike me as a guy who would tolerate it for very long over 2 seasons. realistically the only way this move completely bites the rangers in the ass is if he's injured.

5. redden has a limited NTC. one more time big deal. if the rangers feel redden is truly undeserving of being worth anywhere near $6.5m they wil buy him out long before this deal is done at age 37. and it won't count against the cap. and they could still demote him to the minors. and there's no guarantee that those same teams on reddens' list are in the position they are currently in.

yes i know the current cba is soon to expire but from a financial standpoint i seriously doubt that anything changes that hugely impacts how teams operate now.

and yes i know brooks' points are based on principle more than anything else but he seriously fails to understand(or, more likely, fails to reveal to the readers) that the rangers have $$$ to burn and they can and will do so to help the team as they see fit. they aren't in any way hindered cap-wise or financially by what sather has done so far.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 03:44 PM
  #38
squishy
Registered User
 
squishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
3. so drury has a NTC. big deal. his contract runs out at age 35 right? if they really feel he's not worth it they will buy him out long before it expires and it won't hurt the cap.
How do you figure it won't hurt the cap? If the Rangers were to buy him out, they'd be on the hook for a cap hit of 2/3 of his remaining contract spread over twice the remaining time on the contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
4. naslund has a NMC. again, big deal. the NMC is virtually eliminated by his age. considering he'll be 35 when the season begins, what could the rangers do to get rid of him w/o it hurting the cap anyway?
He was signed before he turned 35, so therefore, without the NMC could have been waived and assigned to Hartford and his salary would not count against the cap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
5. redden has a limited NTC. one more time big deal. if the rangers feel redden is truly undeserving of being worth anywhere near $6.5m they wil buy him out long before this deal is done at age 37. and it won't count against the cap.
Again, there's no mechanism under the new CBA for buying a player out without taking a cap hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
they aren't in any way hindered cap-wise or financially by what sather has done so far.
Except that Sather said in an interview in the Russian press last week that he's not done and that the team needs still needs to strengthen its forward corps. He hasn't left himself a whole lot of room to do that with, or, by giving Redden, Naslund, Gomez and Drury various stages of no trade clauses, hasn't left himself with much flexibility to move salary if the right person comes available in a trade.

Sather's quote:

Quote:
- For me the subject of Jagr is closed. We have turned the page and have started building a new team. For us this is all that matters. We have a good goaltender in Henrik Lundqvist, good defensemen, now it is necessary to strengthen our attack, and we will be able to say that we are ready for the season.
http://www.championat.ru/hockey/article-23214.html

Oh, and he also says in that article that the team is still waiting for Sundin's decision. How he figures to find the cap space to pay him, I don't know.

Quote:
- Yes, we talked often with Mats' agent and with him, but he needs time to make his decision. We are prepared to wait, even if he ultimately turns us down.

squishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 03:51 PM
  #39
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
I don't think the Redden deal is as bad as people think. It's similar to what most baseball players have. It still means he can be traded to 21 other teams. I'm pretty certain he wouldn't want to go back to Ottawa after his experience there.

And as for Naslund, most NMCs (or for that matter NTCs) come down to a player's approval where they would be traded. See Ray Bourque and Dan Boyle for examples. Yeah, I don't like them either but I also don't get that much heartburn. If the Rangers were hopelessly out of playoff contention either this year or next, it would be a big enough disaster with or without NMCs/NTCs.

It looks to me like there is a long term plan in place here. Kalinin, Prucha and Mara all expire this year, they will be replaced by younger players and that money will go to Dubinsky & Zherdev extensions. The following year Naslund comes off the books to pay for Staal's extension. And so on. And BTW, the cap will probably continue to increase each year. The question, of course, is whether that plan will yield the desired performance.
Careful, now...you're suggesting there's a plan in place. C'mon, we all know the organization is just flying by the seat of their pants, and that what took place this off-season has NOTHING to do with how this organization actually intended to build a team since 2004.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 05:19 PM
  #41
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishy View Post
How do you figure it won't hurt the cap? If the Rangers were to buy him out, they'd be on the hook for a cap hit of 2/3 of his remaining contract spread over twice the remaining time on the contract.



He was signed before he turned 35, so therefore, without the NMC could have been waived and assigned to Hartford and his salary would not count against the cap.




Again, there's no mechanism under the new CBA for buying a player out without taking a cap hit.



Except that Sather said in an interview in the Russian press last week that he's not done and that the team needs still needs to strengthen its forward corps. He hasn't left himself a whole lot of room to do that with, or, by giving Redden, Naslund, Gomez and Drury various stages of no trade clauses, hasn't left himself with much flexibility to move salary if the right person comes available in a trade.

Sather's quote:



http://www.championat.ru/hockey/article-23214.html

Oh, and he also says in that article that the team is still waiting for Sundin's decision. How he figures to find the cap space to pay him, I don't know.
ok, i'll admit it...i'm on crack. or at least i feel as such since getting home from work.

i'm going to go nap to clear my head.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 08:26 PM
  #42
Heske_44
Registered User
 
Heske_44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremeHockeyFan View Post

And ragging on the Naslund deal? Seriously? He scored 25 goals and 55 points playing with hacks last season.
That is false. He played until late December pretty well stapled with the Sedins in which at that time he had 34 points. He had about 21 points in about 37 games games playing majoirty of the time with hacks.

I also don't know where the fast notion is coming from...majority of the people I know that wanted him gone called him "the granny"

I like Naslund a lot and wish him the best in returning to form but since the Steve Moore incident (his not Berts) he's played a total perimeter game (not that he was overly aggressive). He succeeded when he had a big body drawing space and a puck rushing d-man (Jovo) to draw attention.

Furthermore your division isn't the southeast. Wish Naslund and Rangers all the best.

Heske_44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 08:44 PM
  #43
Radek27
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,183
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
Jon,

I guess i'm an idiot...i don't know....but...what type of roster is Naslund joining with his new team?

If the Rangers want to "spread" the offense who is Naslund playing with? The same type of forwards he played with last year? Also how does last year explain the four year decline in production that he's had...his scoring chart looks like an upside down V....why do you think it's going to level off on a new team in a new city with new linemates in a new system?

A NMC clause for a guy that MIGHT end up being an asset to move at the deadline is a bad idea....I don't see any reason to give Naslund a NMC...

The day of the signing it was a one year contract...then it turned into a 2 year contract...now it's a 2 year contract with a NMC....I don't understand it...
SOS you are right man. This is a team that is near the cap now, the gm says we aren't done and have to add to the fowards. We still haven''t locked up all our own RFAs this year yet, and we have big time signing to do next year with our own guys. The core players we have now are unmovable due to either being overpaid of some sort of NMC in the deals. I have a feeling we are going to be worse off than Toronto was this past season as far as the cap goes. And through all of this we are going for the cup as the guys who sign here say............I don't see it. I would pick Tampa for the cup before us right now.

I also agree that Naslund and Redden are just HUGE question marks and people are just assuming they are gonna come in here and be the players they once were. Could it happen? They are both very capable talent wise to do so but I'm more of a have to see it kinda guy before I start counting on things like that.

Radek27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 11:01 PM
  #45
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
I'm aware of the difference.
Why is it assumed that Jagr was going to play great? His decline was even more drastic than Naslunds and he was playing for a team that was bending over backwards to accommodate him.
What does Jagr have to do with Naslund and his contract? Do you really want to compare the two players?

Quote:
Why was Naslund playing on the 2nd line? The same reason Shanny wasn't playing on the same line with Jagr; to spread out the scoring.
Naslund isn't exactly joining a forward group littered with top two line talent...

Quote:
I don't understand how you can keep jumping to the assumption that last years team was a 'deeper' team than last years. You haven't seen the current squad on the ice together yet and already you've determined they're worse-off than last year? The only player that hasn't been 'replaced' is Jagr and he was on a more severe decline than Naslund was.
The Rangers lost Shanny, Jagr, Avery, Straka, and replaced them with Fritsche, Naslund, and Zherdev.....I'm sorry I just don't think we have made an upgrade to the forwards. We added some talent but we also added some question marks as well.....We certainly didn't add MORE talent...

Signing Naslund to a contract with a NMC is a bad move. It handcuffs an organization that has little cap space.....You don't give clauses like that to players like Markus Naslund....he is a veteran on the decline in his career......

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 11:12 PM
  #46
NY Ranger86
Registered User
 
NY Ranger86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ryan = Cup
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
LOSE: Straka, Shannahan, Avery, JAGR, Tyutin
GAIN: Zherdev, Fritsche, Naslund, Redden, Kalinin

idk
Zherdev...GREAT!
Fritsche...SURE!
Naslund...Declining skills and over the hill, but hey lets try it!
Redden...Ran out of Ottawa, for a reason? over the hill as well, 6 YEAR CONTRACT!!!!!!
Kalinin...no idea, but Buffalo was very happy to let him go (our Malik)

NY Ranger86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 11:37 PM
  #47
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
What does Jagr have to do with Naslund and his contract? Do you really want to compare the two players?
It's the fact that people seem content with bringing back Jagr for more money than Naslund, despite the fact that his decline was even more significant.

Naslund at 4 mil per vs Jagr at 4+ mil per + bonuses that carry over really isn't even a contest for me. Naslund is the type of player that can compliment the players we have already invested in. Jagr has shown that he is not.

Quote:
Naslund isn't exactly joining a forward group littered with top two line talent...

The Rangers lost Shanny, Jagr, Avery, Straka, and replaced them with Fritsche, Naslund, and Zherdev.....I'm sorry I just don't think we have made an upgrade to the forwards. We added some talent but we also added some question marks as well.....We certainly didn't add MORE talent...

Signing Naslund to a contract with a NMC is a bad move. It handcuffs an organization that has little cap space.....You don't give clauses like that to players like Markus Naslund....he is a veteran on the decline in his career......
If you look at it from a strictly statistical stand point, then sure, we may be down in production by a handful of points. However, we also got younger and have brought in players that suit the game Renney wants to implement.

Is Naslund's contract the greatest move ever? No. But a NMC is certainly less of a burden on a team that has issues with cap space than an incentive laden contract is. Personally, I feel there were just as many question marks in bringing back Jagr, Straka and Avery as there are in bringing in Naslund, Zherdev, etc. Was Jagr going to continue to decline? Was his contract going to hamper us from bringing in other skilled wingers? Was Avery's contract going to limit our options as well? Was he even going to stay healthy?

It's certainly hard to replace a guy like Jagr for what he brings to the ice --and the same can be said about Avery-- but I strongly believe that the right balance of players can outweigh the absence of one player. I feel that with the right line mates and the right coaching environment, Zherdev can be an 80 point player and replace the offense that Jagr brought to the table. Certainly a tall order, but I'm an optimist when it comes to a new year for this team.

We may have not gotten better by leaps and bounds, but I certainly don't think we've back tracked at all. I also think we both know that we can speculate as much as we want, but until the first puck is dropped we wont know who was right.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 12:14 AM
  #48
ebn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
I don't know why everybody is on Sather's case. Naslund was the captain of Vancouver for years. Redden I thought was the second best defensemen available.

The point is before this team fails let it fail then complain. If it doesn't work then blame Sather. Training camp hasn't got underway yet.

The only thing I think this team needs is a right wing that can score on the second line. Then the lineup is perfect. If Saguinetti is not the seventh defensemen then we need the seventh defensemen. We need more scoring from the right side and we are fine. We are also a young team even with Naslund at 35. Who by the way can still score for two more years. I think he's like Shany when we first sighned him.

But I am looking at the lineup and thinking where can we get a right wing for the second line that can score. To me seems the missing piece.

ebn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 02:28 AM
  #49
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishy View Post
I really, really hate it when I agree with Larry Brooks, but he's dead on with this one. This is two summers running that I think Sather's made a massive error in judgment with his free agent signings.
I find I agree with Brooks wholeheartedly 50 percent of the time, and vehemently disagree 50% of the rest.

This is one of those times I agree. After giving franchise player money to TWO non-franchise players (Scott Gomez? I, mean, c'mon? He's scored more than 20 goals in a season, what, once?), Redden and Rozsival getting overpaid, and signing Rissmiller to a million? I don't mind the Naslund move too much, but still.

At least there's the Zherdev deal.

By the way, as soon who can't imagine that Kovalchuk won't get traded before his contract runs out, I think that if the Rangers were to pursue him (and they most definitely should), IN ADDITION to sending at least one, if not more, 1st rd pick and one top prospect and one solid mid-level prospect, they would need to send away a large contract. The best bet? Michal Rozsival, but it could have been Wade Redden.

Redden and his agent aren't idiots, though. They have the power before EACH season to choose 8 teams. It isn't too difficult to predict before each season who the big names that will likely be moved, or could be moved, and which teams are most likely to do the moving. All he would have to do is put those teams on the list, and presto - it isn't 21 teams that he could still go to, since the team's looking to do the dealing are off-limits.


Last edited by NYR Sting: 07-14-2008 at 02:42 AM.
NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 09:00 AM
  #50
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
You're confusing an example with a terrible example.
No I agree it's a terrible example, but that doesn't change his point. Neither does your citing it as a terrible example invalidate his point.

dedalus 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 08:12 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.