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

Gomez terrible anyone?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2009, 11:26 AM
  #251
gravytrain6t
Registered User
 
gravytrain6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Can you comprehend the fact sting that this team right now is better than the pens with all their scoring power. Injuries are just lame excuses for the weak minded teams. Wow no Gonchar uh oh. No fleury whoopity doo.

Again you're second point why continue. You can't read the future. end of story. Idc what u think u can deduce.

What do I honestly expect the callahan and dawes to become and Korpedo? IDK. Obviously more than you. I'll go with your words since you're the expert. There not doing a bad job right now on this team. This team is not a bad team. These same players beat your ducks and your Hawks twice this year. Correct? even though ur in love with the ducks picks and the hawks picks? Right? right.

I thought i made it clear in the post that even when slats messes up in a draft he goes back and makes the team better another way. In the end does it make a difference? Betts >Moore no. okay lets see whats next.

Next u go to Staal? when did i say that u thought he was bad? never. right? right. next.

Girardi is good. The rest of your stuff is the same basic complaining thats been going on all year.

You mentioned Hollweg. he was on a few playoff teams. Slats thought he could make the 4th line better and he did with a top 10 pick as u wish in sjostrom. sorry hes number 11. Next.

Anything can happen in the playoffs. U agree? right? good. the rest of the stuff is idk padded garbage. Next.

Last year the boards that you love to sit on your chair all day and talk on. Our draft pool was rated number 8 by this website. AGAIN.PLEASE I DONT WANT TO SAY IT AGAIN BUT ACCORDING TO U AND HF BOARDS IT PLUMMETED SO MUCH BECAUSE OF CHEREPANOV TRAGEDY. NEXT.....

The Gomez and another winger thing is only hilarious to you because you're a negative Rangers fan. You don't believe players can even get better. and u sit here and think u know it all.

My argument is flawed because i like to see my team in the playoffs every year. yes that makes sense. actually no. it is quite dumb.

Listen your whole argument is that you want us to suck so bad to get the big time pics yes? well tough ****. deal with it. have fun on the boards all day arguing

gravytrain6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2009, 11:28 AM
  #252
gravytrain6t
Registered User
 
gravytrain6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
on your side note, who cares at this point? Three of those players were drafted in 1979, and two were drafted in 1983. I understand it's a side note, but it's an offhanded way of trying to push the notion that Sather's a great drafter. I think people debate whether or not the 1979 draft was Sather's, but let's give it to him. What do the years 1979-1983 have to do with 2000-2009? What happened in between and since 2000? That's all that is relevant to the Rangers today and in the future. A positive track record? Again, what has he done for me lately? Great, he had wonderful drafts in the late 70s and early 80s...when there were fewer teams and the league was different and not global. What does that have to do with today? The game's changed, has Glen?

Here's my idea of a positive track record (of drafting) - year-in and year-out getting the best out of the draft. Since Glen has been doing it for nearly 30 years, I expect nearly 30 years of good drafts, not 1979 and 1983. At what point does a legacy end and you start talking about a guy in the past tense because others have done better in the recent 20 years?
Gotcha!! Thanks Fletch.

gravytrain6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2009, 11:42 AM
  #253
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 gravytrain6t View Post
Can you comprehend the fact sting that this team right now is better than the pens with all their scoring power. Injuries are just lame excuses for the weak minded teams. Wow no Gonchar uh oh. No fleury whoopity doo.
How do you think the Rangers would be doing if Lundqvist had been injured for half the season, if we didn't have Staal for the entire season to his point, and Girardi or Rozsival had missed most of the season?

Quote:
Again you're second point why continue. You can't read the future. end of story. Idc what u think u can deduce.
No I can't, and neither can you. That's why I'm no more wrong in expecting little from these players than you are in expecting a lot.

Quote:
What do I honestly expect the callahan and dawes to become and Korpedo? IDK. Obviously more than you. I'll go with your words since you're the expert. There not doing a bad job right now on this team. This team is not a bad team. These same players beat your ducks and your Hawks twice this year. Correct? even though ur in love with the ducks picks and the hawks picks? Right? right.
You brought up the Cup-winning Ducks and now you're bringing up this year's Ducks. You don't realize that these are two different teams?

I don't care if the Rangers beat the Hawks twice this year, I don't think I'd be alone in guessing that the Hawks are going to have a lot more success in the next 5 years than the Rangers are.

Quote:
I thought i made it clear in the post that even when slats messes up in a draft he goes back and makes the team better another way. In the end does it make a difference? Betts >Moore no. okay lets see whats next.
Yes, you made that very clear. So he used the 6th pick and drafted a complete bust and then traded him for a 4th liner. That's the equivalent of us using the 6th pick in the draft to select Fred Sjostrom, a 4th line player.

Quote:
The rest of your stuff is the same basic complaining thats been going on all year.
Intelligent response.

Quote:
You mentioned Hollweg. he was on a few playoff teams. Slats thought he could make the 4th line better and he did with a top 10 pick as u wish in sjostrom. sorry hes number 11. Next.
See my point above.

Quote:
Anything can happen in the playoffs. U agree? right? good. the rest of the stuff is idk padded garbage. Next.
Another well-thought out response. Yes, anything can happen in the playoffs. I just don't think a team with the 5th-worst offense in the league can go very far against teams who are all great not only defensively like the Rangers, but are great offensively, which the Rangers are not.

Quote:
Last year the boards that you love to sit on your chair all day and talk on. Our draft pool was rated number 8 by this website. AGAIN.PLEASE I DONT WANT TO SAY IT AGAIN BUT ACCORDING TO U AND HF BOARDS IT PLUMMETED SO MUCH BECAUSE OF CHEREPANOV TRAGEDY. NEXT.....
And again, Cherepanov, like all recent picks, was a question mark. Until someone gets to the NHL, you can't evaluate them.

Quote:
The Gomez and another winger thing is only hilarious to you because you're a negative Rangers fan. You don't believe players can even get better. and u sit here and think u know it all.
Please look at my point about your Gomez/LaFontaine argument, and look at yours. I present facts, you insult me.

Quote:
My argument is flawed because i like to see my team in the playoffs every year. yes that makes sense. actually no. it is quite dumb.
Once again, as you continue to do, you twist my words. Your argument is flawed because to back up your points, you bring in tangential and irrelevant statements. I like to see my team in the playoffs every year, too. But eventually, I'd like to see my team win the championship, too. I thought that was the point of these things. To be the best. I'm just wondering how many decades Sather has to get this team there.

Quote:
Listen your whole argument is that you want us to suck so bad to get the big time pics yes? well tough ****. deal with it. have fun on the boards all day arguing
I'll have just as much fun as you, since you're posting just as much as I am. I'm a journalist. I don't have a 9-5 job. I keep strange hours and I work mainly from home. What's your excuse?

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2009, 11:44 AM
  #254
drewcon40
Registered User
 
drewcon40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: born LI, live SI
Posts: 852
vCash: 500
I have to tell you guys...if anything comes out of this debate. I want you to know that I learned something. I did not know deduce was a word.

1: to determine by deduction ; specifically : to infer from a general principle
2: to trace the course of

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deduce

drewcon40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2009, 03:47 PM
  #255
fourhole
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
on your side note, who cares at this point? Three of those players were drafted in 1979, and two were drafted in 1983. I understand it's a side note, but it's an offhanded way of trying to push the notion that Sather's a great drafter. I think people debate whether or not the 1979 draft was Sather's, but let's give it to him. What do the years 1979-1983 have to do with 2000-2009? What happened in between and since 2000? That's all that is relevant to the Rangers today and in the future. A positive track record? Again, what has he done for me lately? Great, he had wonderful drafts in the late 70s and early 80s...when there were fewer teams and the league was different and not global. What does that have to do with today? The game's changed, has Glen?

Here's my idea of a positive track record (of drafting) - year-in and year-out getting the best out of the draft. Since Glen has been doing it for nearly 30 years, I expect nearly 30 years of good drafts, not 1979 and 1983. At what point does a legacy end and you start talking about a guy in the past tense because others have done better in the recent 20 years?
Can we have an amen?

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 04:55 AM
  #256
gravytrain6t
Registered User
 
gravytrain6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewcon40 View Post
I have to tell you guys...if anything comes out of this debate. I want you to know that I learned something. I did not know deduce was a word.

1: to determine by deduction ; specifically : to infer from a general principle
2: to trace the course of

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deduce
Well for the 209th time. He's a journalist. Yea right. What time is it now. He'll sit here and argue the same **** all the live long day. If he's this big journalist. How come everything you write is on here talking with "dumb fans" like me? Seriously, If I'm so below you and my opinions were so unworthy, why would such a hot shot journalist as yourself waste his time arguing with me all day on a Wednesday?
It's so funny. If I wasn't here all day like I was yesterday listening to the same whining and complaining, this thread would have like 2,343 more posts. Back and forth. Me vs the journalist. Don't know why ur wastin ur time with lil ole me. Don't let dummies like me drag you down. Meanwhile everytime I argue something. You argue back.

gravytrain6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 06:40 AM
  #257
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 gravytrain6t View Post
Well for the 209th time. He's a journalist. Yea right. What time is it now. He'll sit here and argue the same **** all the live long day.
And obviously so will you, since you've been doing it for several days. You hurl insults at me, so I merely explained to you why I can afford to sit on here all day long and asked you why you're able to do the same.

Quote:
If he's this big journalist. How come everything you write is on here talking with "dumb fans" like me? Seriously, If I'm so below you and my opinions were so unworthy, why would such a hot shot journalist as yourself waste his time arguing with me all day on a Wednesday?
How do you know everything I write? Hell, I write a lot more on this forum, much less for my job, than I do just in this thread. I never said I was a hotshot journalist, I just said I was a journalist. That's my job, and it's a job that has me sitting by a computer for large, large portions of time.

And for your information, that same Wednesday, in all that arguing with you, I still managed to go and do my job.

Quote:
It's so funny. If I wasn't here all day like I was yesterday listening to the same whining and complaining, this thread would have like 2,343 more posts.
Like much of what you've written, this doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
Back and forth. Me vs the journalist. Don't know why ur wastin ur time with lil ole me.
Probably for the same exact reason you're wasting your time with little ole me. I clearly have nothing better to do, and obviously, neither do you.

Quote:
Don't let dummies like me drag you down.
You said it, not me.

Quote:
Meanwhile everytime I argue something. You argue back.
You keep missing this one key point. It's a forum. Perhaps, like drewcon, you should visit dictionary.com or something like that, maybe you don't know what the the term forum means (you did after all just say you were a dummy).

Quote:
Forum -
- a court or tribunal: the forum of public opinion.
- an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.
You see, this forum's purpose is to act as a center of discussion and debate. If everyone agreed with everyone, it wouldn't be very interesting. Thus, I'm well within my rights to argue any point you bring up, as well as point out the deficiency in your argument. That's kind of how debating works. Also, please note that other people have posted specifically to point out how blatantly irrelevant some of your points are. Perhaps you would have an easier time making your points if you learned how to construct a proper argument first, rather than retorting to childish name-calling.

Furthermore, you'll notice that while plenty of people here disagree with my opinions, and I with theirs, you're the only one that feels it is appropriate to hurl insults. My arguments tend to utilize facts, statistics. Yours simply devolve into immaturity (when they aren't referencing data from several decades ago in an attempt to pass said data off as relevant).

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 07:44 AM
  #258
drewcon40
Registered User
 
drewcon40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: born LI, live SI
Posts: 852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You keep missing this one key point. It's a forum. Perhaps, like drewcon, you should visit dictionary.com or something like that, maybe you don't know what the the term forum means (you did after all just say you were a dummy).
Waaaaait a minute!!!! LOL!!!

drewcon40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 07:46 AM
  #259
gravytrain6t
Registered User
 
gravytrain6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
on your side note, who cares at this point? Three of those players were drafted in 1979, and two were drafted in 1983. I understand it's a side note, but it's an offhanded way of trying to push the notion that Sather's a great drafter. I think people debate whether or not the 1979 draft was Sather's, but let's give it to him. What do the years 1979-1983 have to do with 2000-2009? What happened in between and since 2000? That's all that is relevant to the Rangers today and in the future. A positive track record? Again, what has he done for me lately? Great, he had wonderful drafts in the late 70s and early 80s...when there were fewer teams and the league was different and not global. What does that have to do with today? The game's changed, has Glen?

Here's my idea of a positive track record (of drafting) - year-in and year-out getting the best out of the draft. Since Glen has been doing it for nearly 30 years, I expect nearly 30 years of good drafts, not 1979 and 1983. At what point does a legacy end and you start talking about a guy in the past tense because others have done better in the recent 20 years?

Here's my idea of u wanting some "meat on your bone." Read my other posts. Look at how 1979 and 1983 are by far. Not the only thing I have talked about. You're putting words in my mouth. I have not just came on here and talked about his legacy with the Oilers. All I did was basically say, that we took Sathers home grown talent and won a Cup. Anderson, MaCtavish, Beukeboom, Tikkannen, Lowe, Messier...etc.. And that's the reason you don't hear people every year chanting 1940 and making fun of my beloved franchise. Now I apologize if that sounds like utter stupidity to you.
What has Sather done for you lately? (Wow, I feel like that show, Eddie Murphy Raw when he's talking about wives contantly complaining to their husband."What have you done for me lately?")

I have to post it again, really? If there is one thing I've learned on the boards like the guy above had said, is to sound like a broken record. Fletch did you read my post about Glen Sather, GM of the Rangers pre-lockout?? And how I basically said in so many words, that Glen Sather tried it the Neil Smith, old fashioned way at first (basically buy a Cup from another team. In Smith's case. He brought in star players that just happened to be, at one time Sathers players) and even though guys like Lindros, Fleury, and Holik put up some pretty good numbers the teams did not make the playoffs and Sather learned that he couldn't do it the "Neil Smith way, after all." Another reason why I brought up the old Oiler teams. He realized that when the lockout was over, building a team was no different than the way it was with Edmonton. He said he was going to stock pile this team with draft picks. Currently we are stock piled with draft picks. (here's another side note for your meat bone). Sting said that "this team has one of the worst draft pools in the league, It sucks, It's pathetic...etc...etc.." Basically, he has said nothing new that hasn't been said 1,000 times by the same person.

Last year we were at number 8 according to HF Boards. Do you call that pathetic? Would you say, that at number 8, it is such a horrible prospect pool created by Sather? According to the HF Boards we have dropped because of the tragic death of Cherepanov. Obviously, Sather could not prevent that.

On top of that, I also happen to seem more optimistic. We have prospects right now between the ages of 18 years old to 23 years old. While some others may project the future of these draft picks in a negative light, I happen to view them in a more positive light. How you view them has a lot to say about how much further the conversation between you and myself will last. Not only have the Rangers not finished poorly enough to get a top 10 pick, but we've been making the playoffs every year and Gomez has been producing. So has Drury. We've been playing well as a team. Yes there is such a thing called team chemistry just as much as a lottery draft. When we suck it up bad enough some of the people who swear by the draft will get their wish. Drury and Gomez aren't done yet. Drury just scored a real clutch goal against the mighty Kane and his Hawks and I'm supposed to dislike the guy? It's not just top 10 picks, it's how you play as a team. I cannot reason with a fan who comes on the boards and claims that he is jealous. Yes, Jealous of the Islanders!

People like Sting, WANT to have players like Spezza, Heatley, Vanek, Kovalchuk, Toews and Kane, (who our garbage team beat twice this year ) Ryan and Getzlaf, (who our garbage team has beaten twice this year ), Crosby, Malkin....umm, idk who else is on your WANT LIST STING?

We did beat the Penguins once or twice this season and we are currently in a better position then they are. I asked Sting a question. Where would you rather be in the Standings. Where Pittsburgh and Ottawa are, or where the NY Rangers are? While not answering half of the question he chose the other half because he can find an excuse. I'm not a big excuse person at all. Fleury and Gonchar are out of the lineup was the answer.
Well Fletch doesn't that seem to you, that what he's trying to say is that It's not fair because "Fleury" is out and "Gonchar" is out? Well I'm sorry Sting but who ever said anything about fair. Sorry but FAIR is for kids.
How would I like it if Lundqvist and who was the other guy you named? Staal? If they were out? I wouldn't like it. But is that the case right now? No.

Me and many other die hard Ranger fans are tired of this team missing the playoffs. We would like. If possible. A GM who can put us in the playoffs where everyone knows as well as I do, that anything can happen. The Rangers should make the playoffs 4 years straight and I'm sorry if I am proud of that. I would rather watch my team in the playoffs than Ottawa or some other team.

Not to mention the draft is viewed by many as a crap shoot. Now I'm not saying I fully agree but I also do not disagree. That is why Fletch, and Sting...etc.. I've listed so many players throughout history who became hall of famers or terrific players in general who were not drafted top 10 or even top 1. If you look throughout the course of time, I'm talking post expansion, management knew how to scout players but many times they messed up. Even on a number one pick. Scouts and coaches were no dumber back then. It's the same today. Players are going to pop up and contribute in the later rounds because of good scouting.

Anther point I've seen made by those who do agree at least with some, of what I am saying is that there was no complaining about the signings of Gomez and Drury when they were brought in. All of sudden someone like Sting comes along and tells us all basically that hindsight is 20/20. Let me be more specific. HIS hindsight. Instead, much of the complaining (which I felt were valid) had to do with this team being weak up the middle. Sather addressed those needs and some people chose to look back and whine. Not difficult IMO.

Again to "add meat to your bone" I feel comfortable not only because of Sathers legacy, (which BTW, Smith took advantage of ) but also because Sather knows and has stated he is taking a different approach to building the Rangers and so far it worked. And not to mention, not all of his pre lockout draft picks were busts.

Without going crazy, drafting Henrik Lundqvist in the 7th round, which is a far cry from the top ten picks is not too shabby.

Now I am in a rush, but all we are, are just a bunch of fans cheering on the Rangers. No one is the expert here. Despite a few might try and imply other wise. Who is the real boss behind everything? James Dolan and Hank Ratner. None of us knows what goes on behind closed doors when Sather speaks with either of these guys. No one does. I could be dead wrong and Dolan has absolutely no involvement at all. But I'm not going to ask Sather what have you done for me lately? Because lately is now. And now, I'm enjoying the season. Like I have been the previous 3.

gravytrain6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 08:57 AM
  #260
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
gravy...

i'm sorry, but it's very difficult reading your post. My points are very simple. You mentioned on occasions to trust Sather. You cited picks such as Messier as a reason. You cited 1994's team which had some Edmontom players on it who were drafted by Sather, the latest of which was drafted in 1983. And the context of many of the posts in here was drafting - getting top 10 draft picks or otherwise and doing something with them, which is a nice way of building a team for the long-term. My responses have been that I can't trust a guy based on what you're citing as evidence - 1979-1983 drafts. That's my simple point.

And there may be points that some are missing here. Nobody says having a Crosby guarantees you the Cup. Nobody says that having Ovechkin guarantees you the Cup. What is being said that it's very difficult to win without a couple of those players. What needs to be understood is there still is a TEAM. On that team are various players, your plumbers, your PKers, your stars, etc. I think what is being said is that you need a mix of that. You need that top 10 forward up front in order to take the team to the next level, otherwise you toil around in first round bow-outs and maybe getting to the second round and don't give yourself the chance to win the Cup (and of course 1994 doesn't happen without stars - Messier, Leetch and Richter, for starters). But realize this, you don't get there just because you have a star. What many feel this team is missing is that one guy. The one guy who can take over the games and make people fear playing the Rangers. They have the goalie. They're missing that star and nobody knows how to get that missing ingredient to take the team to the next level because a) he's not in the system, b) people don't believe Sather's a good drafter and won't find the guy and c) there is no cap space to trade for him or sign him.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 08:59 AM
  #261
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 Fletch View Post
i'm sorry, but it's very difficult reading your post. My points are very simple. You mentioned on occasions to trust Sather. You cited picks such as Messier as a reason. You cited 1994's team which had some Edmontom players on it who were drafted by Sather, the latest of which was drafted in 1983. And the context of many of the posts in here was drafting - getting top 10 draft picks or otherwise and doing something with them, which is a nice way of building a team for the long-term. My responses have been that I can't trust a guy based on what you're citing as evidence - 1979-1983 drafts. That's my simple point.

And there may be points that some are missing here. Nobody says having a Crosby guarantees you the Cup. Nobody says that having Ovechkin guarantees you the Cup. What is being said that it's very difficult to win without a couple of those players. What needs to be understood is there still is a TEAM. On that team are various players, your plumbers, your PKers, your stars, etc. I think what is being said is that you need a mix of that. You need that top 10 forward up front in order to take the team to the next level, otherwise you toil around in first round bow-outs and maybe getting to the second round and don't give yourself the chance to win the Cup (and of course 1994 doesn't happen without stars - Messier, Leetch and Richter, for starters). But realize this, you don't get there just because you have a star. What many feel this team is missing is that one guy. The one guy who can take over the games and make people fear playing the Rangers. They have the goalie. They're missing that star and nobody knows how to get that missing ingredient to take the team to the next level because a) he's not in the system, b) people don't believe Sather's a good drafter and won't find the guy and c) there is no cap space to trade for him or sign him.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 09:02 AM
  #262
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 drewcon40 View Post
Waaaaait a minute!!!! LOL!!!
No offense intended.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 01:39 PM
  #263
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,328
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyZ View Post
I see your point here and for the most part I agree with it. It would have been nice if we could have drafted a dynamite young scorer but the fact is that we never lost enough to get those top draft picks.

Also, I hate to mention it, but if Cherepanov hadn't died we might very well have that dangerous top line forward in our system right now.
It's true,

and the focus has kind of been on defense in the drafts since the lockout. Maybe not by choice as he's gone with best player available at times I think, but it's been the focus. And it's going to pay dividends when our top 4 defenseman are Staal, Girardi, Sanguinetti, and Del Zotto....

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 01:57 PM
  #264
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
gravy...

not every team is looking for that guy because many already have that guy - that's the point, I believe, and the teams with those guys, and with a nice complement of players, are the best positioned to succeed. Ludqvist doesn't even come into the equation. But if it makes you feel better, I think we have an elite goalie in Lundvist, which is a strange thing to say of a guy with a GAA of more than 2.50 and who went through a pretty rough stretch.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 01:59 PM
  #265
gravytrain6t
Registered User
 
gravytrain6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Fletch - I understand what you're saying but aren't all of the teams out there looking for that one extra player to fill a particular need. I agree that we have a team and everyone has their separate roles.
Can we at least agree that we have pretty solid goal tending? There might be a team out there that has that "top ten forward," but needs a better goal tender.
There's another point that I think is simple and do not understand why people aren't getting it. I stated that we have a fairly large talent pool of prospects in Hartford and/or playing in Juniors. They may not be top ten picks, but in IMO, I feel I cannot assume that they will simply be busts.
I mean every day it seems like we have people following many of our prospects out there. I'm not going to list them all again but who knows what some of them are capable of?

If Sather has this team going in the wrong direction like some people think, then that will be the time we load up on lottery picks. Kind of like Chicago, or Edmonton.

gravytrain6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 02:11 PM
  #266
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 gravytrain6t View Post
If Sather has this team going in the wrong direction like some people think, then that will be the time we load up on lottery picks. Kind of like Chicago, or Edmonton.
Maybe this will help you see where people with my point of view are coming from.

I was against the hiring of Glen Sather. I predicted he would do a horrible job. 8 years later, this team has won 2 playoff rounds and Sather was forced to rip apart the team four years in only because of the total change of the league's financial situation.

I was against the immense majority of his pre-lockout moves, like Holik, like Lindros. I yearned for him to do the right thing and rebuild. He did not, the moves I was against turned out to be disasters just as I expected.

I was against the way he handled Dan Blackburn. I was against the drafting of Al Montoya (which we wouldn't have needed to do had Blackburn not been mishandled) because I thought he'd be a bust. He is. I was against the drafting of Jessiman because I thought he'd be a bust. He was.

I was against the signings of Gomez, Drury and Redden. Despite your proclamations that Gomez and Drury "are producing," the immense majority of this team's fans, of analysts, of hockey "experts" and fans of any team or the sport in general or the league in general would agree that all three, especially Redden, are massive disappointments. Gomez and Drury are earning a combined 14 million a season for 100-110 points and 35-40 goals. Redden is earning 6.5 million and has 2 goals, 15 assists, and is a mediocre player at nearly ever aspect of the sport. He was brought in specifically to improve our offense and our power play, yet our offense is 5th worst in the league (exactly as it was last season) and our Power Play is the 3rd or 4th worst in the league.

But they're only disappointments to someone like Sather, who obviously expected big things, or else he wouldn't have signed them. They aren't disappointments to me, because I never expected much. I've seen them play, I've seen the Rangers play, and didn't see how they were worth signing contracts that put this team up against the cap with practically no maneuverability for the average production they generate.

And if you want to get really picky, I was against the signing of Voros. What a surprise, the majority of the people here believe it would be a good thing if Voros never played for this team again.

Now there are moves that I approved of from the start, like the Zherdev trade. But those moves are few, and the Zherdev trade aside, generally aren't as monumentally integral to the team's future as the ones that I was so vehemently against.

Keeping all that in mind, can you possibly understand why I wouldn't want to wait until it's proven that the direction Slats has the team going in is wrong? That's all the more years I have to wait for this team to finally rebuild and become a championship contender.

He has been wrong so often, and he has been here a long time. I'm through giving him chances and giving him the benefit of the doubt. He had plenty of chances. Where is the accountability?

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 03:21 PM
  #267
gravytrain6t
Registered User
 
gravytrain6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Maybe this will help you see where people with my point of view are coming from.

I was against the hiring of Glen Sather. I predicted he would do a horrible job. 8 years later, this team has won 2 playoff rounds and Sather was forced to rip apart the team four years in only because of the total change of the league's financial situation.

I was against the immense majority of his pre-lockout moves, like Holik, like Lindros. I yearned for him to do the right thing and rebuild. He did not, the moves I was against turned out to be disasters just as I expected.

I was against the way he handled Dan Blackburn. I was against the drafting of Al Montoya (which we wouldn't have needed to do had Blackburn not been mishandled) because I thought he'd be a bust. He is. I was against the drafting of Jessiman because I thought he'd be a bust. He was.

I was against the signings of Gomez, Drury and Redden. Despite your proclamations that Gomez and Drury "are producing," the immense majority of this team's fans, of analysts, of hockey "experts" and fans of any team or the sport in general or the league in general would agree that all three, especially Redden, are massive disappointments. Gomez and Drury are earning a combined 14 million a season for 100-110 points and 35-40 goals. Redden is earning 6.5 million and has 2 goals, 15 assists, and is a mediocre player at nearly ever aspect of the sport. He was brought in specifically to improve our offense and our power play, yet our offense is 5th worst in the league (exactly as it was last season) and our Power Play is the 3rd or 4th worst in the league.

But they're only disappointments to someone like Sather, who obviously expected big things, or else he wouldn't have signed them. They aren't disappointments to me, because I never expected much. I've seen them play, I've seen the Rangers play, and didn't see how they were worth signing contracts that put this team up against the cap with practically no maneuverability for the average production they generate.

And if you want to get really picky, I was against the signing of Voros. What a surprise, the majority of the people here believe it would be a good thing if Voros never played for this team again.

Now there are moves that I approved of from the start, like the Zherdev trade. But those moves are few, and the Zherdev trade aside, generally aren't as monumentally integral to the team's future as the ones that I was so vehemently against.

Keeping all that in mind, can you possibly understand why I wouldn't want to wait until it's proven that the direction Slats has the team going in is wrong? That's all the more years I have to wait for this team to finally rebuild and become a championship contender.

He has been wrong so often, and he has been here a long time. I'm through giving him chances and giving him the benefit of the doubt. He had plenty of chances. Where is the accountability?
Fair enough. So setting the draft picks aside for a moment. You would have preferred that he wait until there were free agents whom you saw fit to make this team a contender? If so who? And I'm not asking the question to criticize, but I'm just curious as to who you may have had in mind other than Drury or Gomez that you felt would be a better fit for leading this team toward a Stanley Cup Contender.
Or maybe you had no one in mind and just wanted to wait for the day(s) in which Jagr, Nylander and Straka's contracts were to expire, use what we have in the system and then under the assumption that the team would not go very far at all, we would be set up at higher slots come draft day?

See the more I think about all of this, another poster may have mentioned it but pre lockout we had some of the worst goal tending I have ever seen. Horrible. So who ever our top forwards were at the time, it didn't matter if we had 3 guys putting up 100 points each. So I guess this whole entire argument revolves around Lundqvist. Sather thinks we may have the greatest goal tender in the world and wants to build a team with just enough offensive talent to bring us the Stanley Cup. And I think that last sentence right there says it all pretty much. He doesn't want to waste the Lundqvist years and think back to what might have been... So I suppose this is why Sather does not want to give up one single season without making the playoffs and giving Lundqvist the opportunity to win us the Cup. In Sathers mind, Lundqvist is our Crosby.

I mean this is hard. It's frustrating. Like trying to put together all the proper ingredients.

Well I'm going to end it with that and most of all an apology for the arguing and any hurtful words. I got out of line. In the end, we all want the same result.

gravytrain6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2009, 03:43 PM
  #268
MikeyLikesHockey
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 603
vCash: 500
Brothers don't shake hands, brothers hug.

MikeyLikesHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2009, 11:27 AM
  #269
we want cup
Ants in the Pants
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 11,058
vCash: 500
Gomez putting up some numbers. 3G 7A in his last 10 games. Let's hope he keeps it up, and that if he has been nursing an injury, as many suspect, this break lets him heal up.

we want cup 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 11:55 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.