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

Rangers Oilers Proposal That Makes Sense

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-07-2004, 05:46 PM
  #26
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Yea but Goons that cant play. Other than Simon, what tough guy did we have that provided both toughness and a bit of scoring?? Please dont say Ms.McCarthy. This is why Sather should have pushed hard for Wiemer. I wonder what tough guys with skill are available.
For one, I'd challenge the assertion that Laraque has much skill. His career best is 29 points, only mariginally better than McCarthy's. Oh, and back when McCarthy got ran out of town for not being tough enough? Well two of his last three seasons in NY he posted 175+ PIMs. Laraque has only been over 150 PIMs once in his NHL career, and last year he didn't even break 100.

As for goons, last year alone: Barnaby, Purinton, and Simon were all regulars, and Murray and McCarthy showed up after the purge. And while they aren't fighters, Holik, Lindros, Mironov, Malakhov, and Kasparitius were also there to provide yet more 'toughness'. Heck, Messier, even in his dotage, isn't exactly a softy (just ask Jason Blake).

Did any of it matter?

No.

Laraque is great. Ten years ago he'd have been a vital cog on a team. Nowadays? Not so much. And certainly not worth trading what it would take to pry him away from an Edmonton fanbase that adores him. Laraque is one of the few seriously marketable players on that roster, and that matters a whole lot to the revenue short Oilers.

Bottom line is that in today's NHL, the enforcer is a marginal player at best. Look at NJ. Who's their enforcer? Colin White? When was the last time Scott Stevens dropped the gloves? Heck, it's not just NJ either. Detroit's enforcer was . . . McCarty? Fischer? . . . Bueller? How about Colorado? How, oh how, did they ever recover from the critical loss of Peter Worrell? Oh wait, no one noticed the big goof was gone. Does Tampa Bay have a brawler? I don't even remember.

At this stage in the game, I'd rather have three PK specialists on the fourth line, and sit a heavy weight stricly brawler (Grenier or Purinton probably) until Toronto, Philly, or the Islanders show up. Heck, Anaheim is using Garrett Burnett in a similar role for chrissakes, and Purinton could hospitalize him with a harsh glare. The Stanley Cup runner ups were using Krystof Oliwa, and it didn't seem to slow them down.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
09-07-2004, 05:51 PM
  #27
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon
Kodiak said, "Potential? Rachunek proved himself to be a bonafide top 4 guy by earning that kind of ice time on a stacked Ottawa blueline."

he was not a top 4 defensemen on the sens, i dont even know where that came from, he was never more than a 5-6 guy on a stacked defense

there top 4 consisted of phillips, redden, leschyshyn, and of course chara
It came from the fact that Rachunek logged more ice time than all but 2 or 3 of the other Ottawa d-men.

Code:
Avg Ice Time	03-04	02-03	01-02
Chara		24.6	24.96	22.27
Leschyshyn	13.9	15.22	18.47
Phillips	20.81	20.22	19.51
Redden		24.88	25.4	25.1
Volchenkov	13.07	15.5	n/a
Rachunek	19.61	21.76	19.32
Last year and in 01-02, he logged less time than Chara, Redden, and Phillips, but more than Leschyshyn and Volchenkov (when he played). In 01-02, Rachunek and Salo were about even in ice time. In 02-03, he logged less time than Chara and Redden, but more than Phillips, Leschyshyn, and Volchenkov. So yes, he has proven himself as a top 4 d-man on a stacked team. Ottawa decided it wanted more experience on the blueline, and Rachunek was having a rough year.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
09-07-2004, 06:02 PM
  #28
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
almost 22 minutes per game in the 02-03 season. If that's not top 4 minutes, I'm not sure what constitutes top 4 minutes. I didn't check last season, however, when he fell out of favor - and considering they were a first round knockout last season, I'm not sure how much I trust the Sens' judgement on their assessment of Rachunek. He did average nearly 20 minutes per night over the entire season, but not sure what he averaged in his 60 games with the Sens. Further, Leschysyn averaged just under 14 minutes per night, which is third pair minutes, not top 4.
You beat me to the punch, Fletch, but only because I went more in-depth.

To answer your question, Rachunek averaged 22:04 in ice time in October, 18:19 in November, 21:35 in December, 20:07 in January, and 18:05 in February. In March, he played 2 games with the Sens before the trade. So it looks like Rachunek was still getting 18-22 minutes a night, which would still be in line with a #3-4 d-man.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
09-07-2004, 06:09 PM
  #29
Janerixon
Registered User
 
Janerixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
It came from the fact that Rachunek logged more ice time than all but 2 or 3 of the other Ottawa d-men.

Code:
Avg Ice Time	03-04	02-03	01-02
Chara		24.6	24.96	22.27
Leschyshyn	13.9	15.22	18.47
Phillips	20.81	20.22	19.51
Redden		24.88	25.4	25.1
Volchenkov	13.07	15.5	n/a
Rachunek	19.61	21.76	19.32
Last year and in 01-02, he logged less time than Chara, Redden, and Phillips, but more than Leschyshyn and Volchenkov (when he played). In 01-02, Rachunek and Salo were about even in ice time. In 02-03, he logged less time than Chara and Redden, but more than Phillips, Leschyshyn, and Volchenkov. So yes, he has proven himself as a top 4 d-man on a stacked team. Ottawa decided it wanted more experience on the blueline, and Rachunek was having a rough year.

in 02-03 and 03-04 leschyshyn was hurt for good portions of the year missing more than 25 games each year, creating a chance for rachunek to play more and log more minutes, he was not their clear cut #4

the guy has talent im not going to deny him of that but he looked lost here, hopefully he can regain his form, but im not saying he is a top 4 defensemen

also as you mentioned he was clearly playing for a better team and with better defensive partners on the senators, which should make him a better player

its much easier for a player to fit in on a good team then to shine or just do their job on a bad one

Janerixon is offline  
Old
09-07-2004, 06:52 PM
  #30
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon
in 02-03 and 03-04 leschyshyn was hurt for good portions of the year missing more than 25 games each year, creating a chance for rachunek to play more and log more minutes, he was not their clear cut #4
Leschyshyn may have been hurt a bit in 02-03, but he only missed 8 games last year because of injuries. The other 18 games he missed because he was a healthy scratch. If Leschyshyn was a top 4 guy in Ottawa, why was he only dressed in 2 playoff games this year? He was not hurt. Since Salo was traded, the pairings in Ottawa have been Chara-Phillips and Redden-Rachunek eating up the most ice time, with Leschyshyn/Pothier-Volchenkov taking whatever ice time was leftover. Rachunek firmly entrenched himself in Ottawa's top 4. Leschyshyn was there for depth and leadership, not to log a lot of ice time.

Quote:
also as you mentioned he was clearly playing for a better team and with better defensive partners on the senators, which should make him a better player

its much easier for a player to fit in on a good team then to shine or just do their job on a bad one
Conversely, I can say that being on a better team made it much more difficult for him to earn that kind of ice time. He had to fight a 15-year vet and an up-and-coming kid with a ton of potential for his ice time. Here, anyone who can skate backwards can get 20 minutes a night.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
09-07-2004, 07:11 PM
  #31
Janerixon
Registered User
 
Janerixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
Leschyshyn may have been hurt a bit in 02-03, but he only missed 8 games last year because of injuries. The other 18 games he missed because he was a healthy scratch. If Leschyshyn was a top 4 guy in Ottawa, why was he only dressed in 2 playoff games this year? He was not hurt. Since Salo was traded, the pairings in Ottawa have been Chara-Phillips and Redden-Rachunek eating up the most ice time, with Leschyshyn/Pothier-Volchenkov taking whatever ice time was leftover. Rachunek firmly entrenched himself in Ottawa's top 4. Leschyshyn was there for depth and leadership, not to log a lot of ice time.

Conversely, I can say that being on a better team made it much more difficult for him to earn that kind of ice time. He had to fight a 15-year vet and an up-and-coming kid with a ton of potential for his ice time. Here, anyone who can skate backwards can get 20 minutes a night.
as for being more difficult to earn icetime on a better team, im going to have to disagree on you with that. he did have good competition, but the senators actually play defense and they play a solid team game, making it easier to change pieces

think of it like the devils, they have their stars like broduer, stevens, and nieder but they are basically a team that plays as a unit, and their system makes its easier for players to fit in as oppossed to the rangers where everyone is just doing what they feel is best or what will work

playing with redden, arguably the 2nd best d-men on the sens and defintely a better d-man then any current ranger has to make life easier on rachunek than playing with a rookie named pock or lampman

i knew rachunek logged a good amount of minutes in 02-03 because curtis was hurt, however i was unaware that he was a healthy scratch for so much of this past season, so i will admit i was wrong, but i still do not see rachunek as a top 4 defensemen on the rangers, thats just my opinion

for him to succeed as a ranger he will have to become a smarter player and step his game up because he will not have wade redden as his partner, he will play with poti, kasper, or some other rookie

i just dont see him as a top 4 on such a bad team, however i am curious to see what he looks like in camp and this season, but i see him as a 5-6 guy for sure

Janerixon is offline  
Old
09-07-2004, 10:16 PM
  #32
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
Does Tampa Bay have a brawler? I don't even remember.
Umm Yea both Chris Dingman and Andre Roy. Both played key parts in getting their stanley cup.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
09-07-2004, 10:43 PM
  #33
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Umm Yea both Chris Dingman and Andre Roy. Both played key parts in getting their stanley cup.
Well, first off, isn't that a little nit picky? Sure, there are successful teams with enforcer/goons. You could have pointed out Toronto, Philadelphia, or the fact that Colorado typically does try to keep someone around for this stuff. But that doesn't negate my point, i.e., that having a quality enforcer is no longer a key component to a winning program. There are simply too many teams that ignore it these days, and the instigator heavily limits what they can accomplish.

As for Tampa Bay: In the playoffs Dingman played 23 games at about 5 minutes a game, scored one goal, one assist, with 13 SOG. Roy also played 23 games, he got all the way to 6 minutes a game, and got 1 goal, 2 assists (he did have a GW tho) and 11 SOG. They also managed to stay out of +/- trouble . . . but they also combined for 122 PIMs in those 23 games.

How is any of that a 'key part' to the Stanley Cup year? Can you give me a clear reason why Andre Roy and Chris Dingman and all their PIMs helped more than a few Ted Donato's, Jed Ortemeyer's, or Pascal Rheaume's would have?

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
09-07-2004, 10:58 PM
  #34
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
no thanks.

I like Laraque but the value of a -at best- third liner is not a potential #2-4 defenseman

in the hall is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 09:34 AM
  #35
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
Well, first off, isn't that a little nit picky? Sure, there are successful teams with enforcer/goons. You could have pointed out Toronto, Philadelphia, or the fact that Colorado typically does try to keep someone around for this stuff. But that doesn't negate my point, i.e., that having a quality enforcer is no longer a key component to a winning program. There are simply too many teams that ignore it these days, and the instigator heavily limits what they can accomplish.

As for Tampa Bay: In the playoffs Dingman played 23 games at about 5 minutes a game, scored one goal, one assist, with 13 SOG. Roy also played 23 games, he got all the way to 6 minutes a game, and got 1 goal, 2 assists (he did have a GW tho) and 11 SOG. They also managed to stay out of +/- trouble . . . but they also combined for 122 PIMs in those 23 games.

How is any of that a 'key part' to the Stanley Cup year? Can you give me a clear reason why Andre Roy and Chris Dingman and all their PIMs helped more than a few Ted Donato's, Jed Ortemeyer's, or Pascal Rheaume's would have?
Take Dingman and Roy out of the lineup for TB and watch a guy like St Louis get run out the building. Just like always happens when fans like you like you think the toughness issue becomes passe.

kazo is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 09:42 AM
  #36
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by icthelight
That is laughable and i wouldn't give a 4th rounder for him.
Don't tell me, tell Kevin Lowe, he is the one saying it.

Slats432 is online now  
Old
09-08-2004, 09:53 AM
  #37
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazo
Take Dingman and Roy out of the lineup for TB and watch a guy like St Louis get run out the building. Just like always happens when fans like you like you think the toughness issue becomes passe.

The point Kubera made, that I fully agree with, isn't that toughness is "passe" but having the "nuclear" enforcer is not needed.

There's still a need for team toughness, and hopefully guys like G. Murray, Marshall, Strudwick, etc can provide it, but sending assets for just one "heavyweight" is a mis-use of assets in todays NHL. Dingman and Roy provided an important role for TB, but not so much with their fists, but just playing tough hockey and stepping up to protect a teammate when needed.

I'd rather see the Rangers develop as a team and let the tough guys come from the system.. Murray won't be a heavyweight fighter, but he can be one of the young core who provides toughness throughout the lineup. Maybe guys like Giroux, Holloweg, Graham, Kozak, "Big Snake" etc. become that core that can protect themselves and others, but have more skill to play..

Davisian is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 10:08 AM
  #38
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazo
Take Dingman and Roy out of the lineup for TB and watch a guy like St Louis get run out the building. Just like always happens when fans like you like you think the toughness issue becomes passe.
Kubera's not talking about "toughness". He's talking about dedicating a spot in the lineup for a pugalist.

As he pointed out, the Rangers weren't a team lacking "toughness" or a heavyweight fighter and our smaller and/or skilled players were thrown around like rag dolls nightly. Where's the deterrant?

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 10:58 AM
  #39
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
The point Kubera made, that I fully agree with, isn't that toughness is "passe" but having the "nuclear" enforcer is not needed.

There's still a need for team toughness, and hopefully guys like G. Murray, Marshall, Strudwick, etc can provide it, but sending assets for just one "heavyweight" is a mis-use of assets in todays NHL. Dingman and Roy provided an important role for TB, but not so much with their fists, but just playing tough hockey and stepping up to protect a teammate when needed.

I'd rather see the Rangers develop as a team and let the tough guys come from the system.. Murray won't be a heavyweight fighter, but he can be one of the young core who provides toughness throughout the lineup. Maybe guys like Giroux, Holloweg, Graham, Kozak, "Big Snake" etc. become that core that can protect themselves and others, but have more skill to play..
Big Snake has to be signed. I hope Sather signs him since he is a LW. We are short on those.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 04:18 PM
  #40
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Big Snake has to be signed. I hope Sather signs him since he is a LW. We are short on those.
So we should sign any Joe Blow off the street?

Holy ****.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 05:43 PM
  #41
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,898
vCash: 500
Speaking from the Oilers POV, this trade makes no sense because there is no interest in Rachunek. The Oilers are filled with young upcoming defensemen, adding another one to the mix does not help.

Before you post a trade, think about what the other needs are, before your own teams' needs.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 09:43 PM
  #42
Fire Sather
new Niclas Wallin?
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 20,367
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Remember, Laraque will retire if traded.

Seriously, why would we want to move Rach?

He was my favorite new player we got last year, along with Balej.

Fire Sather is online now  
Old
09-08-2004, 11:10 PM
  #43
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Thanks for the assists Davis and Melrose... wish it was making more of a dent.

Ah well, I suppose some hockey traditions run deep, even if they seem out of touch with the state of the modern game.

The irony, as I keep saying, is that I really like Laraque. I think he's a terrific player, and in the east, where his skating would be less of an issue, he might be more effective.

But no way is he worth what Edmonton would demand for him. And no way should the Rangers prioritize getting a heavyweight before they have a decent defensive-defenseman, or a quality center under 31.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 01:16 AM
  #44
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,664
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
For one, I'd challenge the assertion that Laraque has much skill. His career best is 29 points, only mariginally better than McCarthy's. Oh, and back when McCarthy got ran out of town for not being tough enough? Well two of his last three seasons in NY he posted 175+ PIMs. Laraque has only been over 150 PIMs once in his NHL career, and last year he didn't even break 100.
There's a very obvious reason for that, and it's already been mentioned in this thread: No one fights him. He's got that little reputation as the best fighter in the league, and that intimidates more than a couple players. And if Laraque's not fighting, he's not getting penalties. He's not a goon, he's an enforcer.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 12:28 AM
  #45
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
There's a very obvious reason for that, and it's already been mentioned in this thread: No one fights him. He's got that little reputation as the best fighter in the league, and that intimidates more than a couple players. And if Laraque's not fighting, he's not getting penalties. He's not a goon, he's an enforcer.
So he's so intimidating that no one fights him.

So how is he deterring people from attacking his teammates?

I mean, what are they afraid he's going to do if they have the option of just not dropping the gloves against the guy? Isn't, glaring at people and nothing else, exactly what people were mad about with McCarthy?

I have yet to see any evidence at all that suggests that an enforcer, no matter how good, has any deterrent effect on opposing teams in the modern era.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 04:57 PM
  #46
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
So he's so intimidating that no one fights him.

So how is he deterring people from attacking his teammates?

I mean, what are they afraid he's going to do if they have the option of just not dropping the gloves against the guy? Isn't, glaring at people and nothing else, exactly what people were mad about with McCarthy?

I have yet to see any evidence at all that suggests that an enforcer, no matter how good, has any deterrent effect on opposing teams in the modern era.
I don't disagree. As an Oilers fan I would like Laraques to be more aggressive. Its one thing having one of the best fighters in the league, its another thing having the same guy go punk on your team. What if Laraques beat your team's tough guy to a pulp (remember Rob Ray?) then start checking the top defenseman into the boards. The problem is that Laraques doesn't take the next step, he does not initiate only retaliates.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 01:08 AM
  #47
mazmin
Go! Jets! Go!
 
mazmin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
Didn't Chris Simon pretty much prove that the way of the enforcer is pretty much obsolete in today's NHL?

Last year Simon was an absolute brute for the Rangers. Physical, mean, terrifying. And an effective 2nd/3rd line PF to boot.

The result?

His 'enforcement' skills were so feared that Jason freakin' Doig almost ended Eric Lindros career. Petr Nedved and Alex Kovalev spent most nights being treated by the opposition like Schlinger welcomed Beecher to Oz. PECA took Jamie Lundmark's knee, elbowed Poti in the face, and Nedved in the head, all in one game! Eric Cairns ended Richard Scott's career, Joel Bouchard got treated like a human ping-pong ball, Darcy Tucker tried to jump Brian Leetch, and Messier had to throttle Jason Blake almost to death (o.k. I enjoyed that last one.)

And while Simon's enforcing skills were having no positive impact at all, he managed to repeatedly leave his team, the worst PK'ing team in hockey, down a man. He also got tossed out of several games, and had some really questionable moments of judgment (*cough* Fedetenko *cough*).

Seriously, Laraque's a big, bad, tough guy who I certainly wouldn't want to annoy. But none of that has a thing to do with winning hockey games anymore. What I'll miss from Chris Simon is the quality 2nd/3rd line minutes he contributed, and the presence along the boards and in the corners that he represented. His PIMs and 'fighting skills' will not be missed at all. And why a team terrifyingly short on NHL experienced defensemen would trade away a 25 year old with 200+ quality games for a 4th line forward . . . no idea.

Don't get me wrong, I actually love Laraque. I think he's one of the five best interviews in hockey, a terrific community influence, and an entertaining guy out on the ice. But the Rangers would be well advised to expend resources on more pressing needs. (defense, defense, defense, defense . . .)
Well put. I agree completely.

mazmin is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 06:11 PM
  #48
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfanatic
"Well put. I agree completely. "


Doig's season was ended by Simon and DeVries as they made him pay for the Lindros hit. The Peca hit on Lundmark was pointless. Knee stuff happens all the time. You can't expect an enforcer to go after every player on a knee hit.

Nedved and Kovalev were barely hit all year. If you wanted to see Nedved get abused try looking back a couple of years ago when they had no enforcer. Scott is a goon. He can take care of himself. He lost a fight. Big deal. Tucker jumps players on every team.

Bottom line is most of our skill players were barely touched last year. They just stunk. You have no clue if you think if Simon wasn't there it would have been a lot worse cause it would have
Worse? It could have been worse? How?

Go back and watch the Islanders games. See Peca, a small non-fighting checking center? See him elbowing Nedved in the head? Slashing Poti in the face? Does he look scared of Big-Bad-Chris? And that's just one anecdotal game. Jason Doig may have gotten clobbered by Simon and De Vries later on, but big freakin' deal. Lindros season was already completely fragged. Think there isn't a team in the league that would trade Jason Doig for Eric Lindros? And it's not like Doig wouldn't do it all over again.

Again, fighters have their uses in the NHL, I'm not debating that. I am debating that there is any significant deterrent effect to having, as one poster on this thread put it, a 'nuclear enforcer'. Laraque is the best fighter in the league, sure. But do you think Darius Kasparitius or Bryan Marchmant ever backed off a check because someone might beat them up later on??

It's useful to have someone stick up for your guys. It helps esprit-de-corps, and it's good for the crowd. But it matters very little if your guy wins or loses. The best fighter the Rangers had in 7 or 8 years is probably Matt Barnaby, and he NEVER wins. But he never fails to get the crowd going, his teammates love him, and he's stood in there against the best. (Oh yeah, and he could also play hockey and didn't take silly penalties.)

This team has no need for Laraque, and Edmonton has no need to trade him.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 06:50 PM
  #49
JCProdigy
Registered User
 
JCProdigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I want what I want
Posts: 1,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
But do you think Darius Kasparitius or Bryan Marchmant ever backed off a check because someone might beat them up later on??
And it would take alot for even that to happen. Fighters beat up OTHER fighters. When any fighter chases a guy like Marchment etc. the fight ends up in a 15 second hugging contest followed by a take down (that's also if someone on the opposite team doesn't jump in to protect his player in turn). Not much of a deterrent IMO.

JCProdigy is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:57 PM.

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.