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

Did Dawes ever play with Drury?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2008, 02:21 PM
  #51
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyGSpot View Post
Its not meaningless garbage, its statistics, cold hard numbers that show we didn't play as great as everyone would like to think in their own little fantasy world.
I don't hear a lot of posters saying the Rangers got robbed of a cup or even had the right team to contend for one, in fact if you asked me before the playoffs what this teams potential was id say it was probably the conference finals - I dont know where you are getting this idea that I think that team LAST YEAR (which has nothing to do with this year) had serious cup potential, other than Henrik getting red hot.

Quote:
They should have played the people that were making good money on the top lines, and if they couldn't cut it, they should have been traded.
There it is, again with that. So you sign Drury to 7 million a year for 5 years and then trade him the same year? How many times have you seen that happen in the NHL? How many games until you decide that Gomez and Drury werent fitting with Jagr? And who would you have traded? Jagr? Gomez? Drury? For who? How would you be so sure that THE NEW PLAYER(S) would have meshed with the team?
Your basis for this argument is ridiculous.

Quote:
Cmon Brandon Dubinsky on the top line? Gomer and Jagr should have played together until they gelled, regardless of how horrible they might have been.
So youre saying you'd play 82 games with a top line that doesnt work just because they pay them the most $$?

What kind of demented fan are you?

Quote:
Instead we had 3 average scoring lines that didn't cut it in the playoffs. Sorry to bust your bubble here, but why do you think we didn't offer Jagr a contract? It wasn't because of Omsk, it was because he didn't gel with anyone on the team except some 3rd line center. He should have been able to adapt to Gomer or Drury's style.
Uh, ok... so its Jagrs fault now, that he plays a style that doesnt fit the two FA signed by Sather that summer. If you want to blame someone blame Sather. I was one of the ones BEGGING for Jagr to leave in the offseason because of this. You arent busting any bubbles here.


Quote:
Since Gomer and Drury are making the most money on the team in terms of forwards they should be the top two line centers, if not why did we pay them so much. Its a case of being accountable for their salaries.
Uh, ever here of market value? Thats whats determined in Free Agency when there are small amounts of product and a large demand exists for them. The price goes up. The Rangers wouldnt have Gomez, Drury, or Redden if they didnt pay large amounts for them. They wouldnt have Lundqvist if they didnt pay him almost 7 a year. Are you upset the Rangers signed these guys for that price or mad at the players themselves for not living up to their salaries? If the latter is the case, then you have a point but it still doesnt justify why you would sacrifice the teams success based on the amount of money a player makes in relationship to others...

Quote:
Or would you rather keep them where they were and hope another 3 average lines will win a cup? Unfortunately for the rest of reality and fans in general, decisions are not made solely based on chemistry. Otherwise Drury would have been benched for most of the playoffs. ITs not bS it just the truth....and some people just can't handle the truth.
I can guarantee you that I am not the minority in thinking this. Let me ask you this - if what you say is true, and decisions are not based solely on chemistry and only the amount you make, then why DID the Rangers play Dubinsky on the first line, Drury on the third, benched Prucha and Malik and split up Jagr and Gomez?

Somehow you seem to avoid that question... WHY did they do that?

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2008, 02:50 PM
  #52
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 30,000
vCash: 500
i wont argue with anyone here, but the thing i like is the versatility of most of the players on this team....all of them are team-players and will do whatever is asked of them whether it is moving from wing to center or center to wing or right-defense to left it seems like there are TONS of options

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2008, 08:39 PM
  #53
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
moving from left wing to right wing or center is nice, but I rather a GM build a team with players in positions in which they've achieved the most success as opposed to moving them around later hoping they can make a tranisition. It's almost like the switch hitter - never seems great from both sides as there's typically a most comfortable side.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2008, 08:41 PM
  #54
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Hbnyc...

I have to agree that if Drury's going to make $7MM he should be a 'second line centerman'. Why? It's simple: you don't pay that much for a guy then expect 20 goals as a third liner. You can get the guy cheaper. I agree 100% that it was market forces, but the market demands were not for a third liner. He should be paying with guys who give him the best opportunity to net 30 goals and 30 assists, whoever they may be.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2008, 10:35 AM
  #55
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I have to agree that if Drury's going to make $7MM he should be a 'second line centerman'. Why? It's simple: you don't pay that much for a guy then expect 20 goals as a third liner. You can get the guy cheaper. I agree 100% that it was market forces, but the market demands were not for a third liner. He should be paying with guys who give him the best opportunity to net 30 goals and 30 assists, whoever they may be.
I cant dispute that, but his argument is that all players TOI should directly correspond to their salaries and thats extremely hard to make a case for, because not one team in the NHL runs their roster that way.

And thats because they want to win games.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2008, 11:09 AM
  #56
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 30,000
vCash: 500
^^^

true, but most of the time the players making the most money are the players who get the most ice time.....jagr, drury and gomez were all getting a ton of ice time last season

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2008, 03:18 PM
  #57
MikeyLikesHockey
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
I don't hear a lot of posters saying the Rangers got robbed of a cup or even had the right team to contend for one, in fact if you asked me before the playoffs what this teams potential was id say it was probably the conference finals - I dont know where you are getting this idea that I think that team LAST YEAR (which has nothing to do with this year) had serious cup potential, other than Henrik getting red hot.



There it is, again with that. So you sign Drury to 7 million a year for 5 years and then trade him the same year? How many times have you seen that happen in the NHL? How many games until you decide that Gomez and Drury werent fitting with Jagr? And who would you have traded? Jagr? Gomez? Drury? For who? How would you be so sure that THE NEW PLAYER(S) would have meshed with the team?
Your basis for this argument is ridiculous.



So youre saying you'd play 82 games with a top line that doesnt work just because they pay them the most $$?

What kind of demented fan are you?



Uh, ok... so its Jagrs fault now, that he plays a style that doesnt fit the two FA signed by Sather that summer. If you want to blame someone blame Sather. I was one of the ones BEGGING for Jagr to leave in the offseason because of this. You arent busting any bubbles here.




Uh, ever here of market value? Thats whats determined in Free Agency when there are small amounts of product and a large demand exists for them. The price goes up. The Rangers wouldnt have Gomez, Drury, or Redden if they didnt pay large amounts for them. They wouldnt have Lundqvist if they didnt pay him almost 7 a year. Are you upset the Rangers signed these guys for that price or mad at the players themselves for not living up to their salaries? If the latter is the case, then you have a point but it still doesnt justify why you would sacrifice the teams success based on the amount of money a player makes in relationship to others...



I can guarantee you that I am not the minority in thinking this. Let me ask you this - if what you say is true, and decisions are not based solely on chemistry and only the amount you make, then why DID the Rangers play Dubinsky on the first line, Drury on the third, benched Prucha and Malik and split up Jagr and Gomez?

Somehow you seem to avoid that question... WHY did they do that?
All decent points, yet none point to what the crux of the argument is. The only question of note in this ranting diatribe why did they split them up. Fair question. Of all the players, they could only get rid of Gomer, since Dru has a no trade clause and Jagr wasn't going anywhere. We were pretty much screwed at that point. So we didn't really have Drury playing on the 3rd line, they called it the 2nd line and Gomez and Dubinsky ran the 1a and 1b lines. You do remember that don't you?

And the net result of trying to find chemistry instead of trading some players away for better pieces, getting knocked out in 5 by Sydney Crybaby and the Putrid Pens.

With the amount of Raw talent on the team, and the amount of money paid, the old dogs set in their ways should have found out how to play differently to make more of an impact, but instead they just kept trucking along.

Now the real question is, how many of us think going into opening night with the current roster that Drury and Gomez will be in the top two lines? Sather is now on the hook for a a better run at the cup. The big money players will deliver or Sather is gone. Chemistry or no Chemistry. The real thing we need is adaptability. The ability to adapt to differnt line combos , and different styles of play.

My main point is lines are not created on Chemistry alone, but a multitude of factors, money spent , expectations , so on and so forth.

Dubi was put on the line with Jagr because of how much we spent on Jagr, he HAD to play good so we put him with anyone we can. Not beacuase of Chemistry but because of accountability. He should have been playing with Avery and Gomer or Drury or Shannahan. Plain and simple.

MikeyLikesHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2008, 06:18 PM
  #58
RMcDonagh
New York Rangers Cup
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyGSpot View Post
All decent points, yet none point to what the crux of the argument is. The only question of note in this ranting diatribe why did they split them up. Fair question. Of all the players, they could only get rid of Gomer, since Dru has a no trade clause and Jagr wasn't going anywhere. We were pretty much screwed at that point. So we didn't really have Drury playing on the 3rd line, they called it the 2nd line and Gomez and Dubinsky ran the 1a and 1b lines. You do remember that don't you?

And the net result of trying to find chemistry instead of trading some players away for better pieces, getting knocked out in 5 by Sydney Crybaby and the Putrid Pens.

With the amount of Raw talent on the team, and the amount of money paid, the old dogs set in their ways should have found out how to play differently to make more of an impact, but instead they just kept trucking along.

Now the real question is, how many of us think going into opening night with the current roster that Drury and Gomez will be in the top two lines? Sather is now on the hook for a a better run at the cup. The big money players will deliver or Sather is gone. Chemistry or no Chemistry. The real thing we need is adaptability. The ability to adapt to differnt line combos , and different styles of play.

My main point is lines are not created on Chemistry alone, but a multitude of factors, money spent , expectations , so on and so forth.

Dubi was put on the line with Jagr because of how much we spent on Jagr, he HAD to play good so we put him with anyone we can. Not beacuase of Chemistry but because of accountability. He should have been playing with Avery and Gomer or Drury or Shannahan. Plain and simple.
Lines are made by chemistry and player styles, that's it. Nothing else. No money, no nothing.

Dubinsky was put on a line with Jagr because Jagr meshed well with Dubinsky, more-so than he did with Gomez and Drury. Drury got shafted. Drury developed SOME chemistry with Dawes, but that was barely enough to hold him afloat. Because Jagr is a whiney baby, who needs to get whatever he wants, Drury had a sub-par offensive season because he was playing with either rookie players or has-beens (Dawes, Prucha, Korpikoski, Moore, Hossa - etc).

It has NOTHING to do with money. You ARE wrong.

RMcDonagh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2008, 11:51 AM
  #59
MikeyLikesHockey
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 603
vCash: 500
haha...you wish. If money wasn't a big concern, how come we expect so much from Redden, cause we signed him for a lot of MONEY.

If he ends up on the 3rd d-man pairing there will be hell to pay.

MikeyLikesHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2008, 11:55 AM
  #60
we want cup
Ants in the Pants
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 11,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyGSpot View Post
haha...you wish. If money wasn't a big concern, how come we expect so much from Redden, cause we signed him for a lot of MONEY.

If he ends up on the 3rd d-man pairing there will be hell to pay.
.....but according to you that wouldn't happen (plus my guess is that if that happened we'd be rolling d pairings pretty evenly anyway). don't try to make it seem like the coaching staff blindly adheres to a strict system to determine lines. lines are the kind of thing you have to feel out, and if it means drury playing on the third line, it means drury playing on the third line.

__________________

RANGERS =
we want cup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2008, 12:28 PM
  #61
RMcDonagh
New York Rangers Cup
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyGSpot View Post
haha...you wish. If money wasn't a big concern, how come we expect so much from Redden, cause we signed him for a lot of MONEY.

If he ends up on the 3rd d-man pairing there will be hell to pay.
Couldn't be that he's an all-star defenseman? Not at all?

......

RMcDonagh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2008, 12:37 PM
  #62
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
i wont argue with anyone here, but the thing i like is the versatility of most of the players on this team....all of them are team-players and will do whatever is asked of them whether it is moving from wing to center or center to wing or right-defense to left it seems like there are TONS of options
we got lot of players that can play centre: Dubinsky, Drury, Gomez, Betts. Fritsche, Korpikoski, Moore, Callahan. I think Rissmiller can play centre, he did at times for the Sharks.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2008, 12:57 PM
  #63
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyGSpot View Post
haha...you wish. If money wasn't a big concern, how come we expect so much from Redden, cause we signed him for a lot of MONEY.

If he ends up on the 3rd d-man pairing there will be hell to pay.
How could that EVER happen?


According to you, since he gets paid over 6 million a year for 6 years thats impossible.

You can't say that salaries are directly correlated to where they play in the lineup and then turn around and offer a situation like this... you're basically admitting that your basis is wrong...and for the 4th time in this thread nonetheless.

HockeyBasedNYC 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 09:13 AM.

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.