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

If Niemi Becomes Available, Would You Deal Hank - Jay Levine

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-31-2010, 09:00 AM
  #76
007
You 'Orns!
 
007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,486
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
I this is a dumb blog. Why would the Rangers try to waste money signing Niemi? They should trade Hank right now, because they have Martin Biron to take over as the starter.

007 is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 09:13 AM
  #77
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,149
vCash: 500
We would only do it for one elite player plus one or two very good players, probably for a total cap hit just a bit higher than Henrik's with the guarentee that we get another goalie back. Here's the problem: goalies get nothing in trades. Former cup winner Giguere? Blake and Toskala. Turco, a guy once considered to be in the top five can't find a job today which actually weakens our position in the trade. Bryzgalov received zero interest on the trade market and was picked up on waivers.
Boston is trying to give away Tim Thomas. Luongo got Auld and a washed up Bertuzzi.

The return we need to justify this move just won't come back. I don't know, maybe in today's NHL you don't need an elite goalie but at this point we won't get fair value for Lundqvist and certainly will never get a guy back that impacts the team as much as he does for the cap hit he carries.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 09:34 AM
  #78
msv957
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
you really think it's that ridiculous? Neimi did just win a cup did he not?
He's played big in big games. We'd pick up a SC winning goalie who's younger than Hank, but at least 2 quality forwards.

As long as he went out West it wouldn't come back to haunt us...
Interesting... but no deal....

Your point does make sense... Carter is a young star who can fill the #1 center spot for a long time.

Niemi did win a Stanley cup so he can perform well at the highest level and at the most intense pressure situations... After all... The goal is to win a Stanley Cup and Niemi is a Stanley cup winning goalie... But.. Niemi is not in a class as Hank right now...

This would be a tempting propostion for a second... But... Hank is a god with MSG faithful and any soft goal that Niemi might let up he would never hear the end of it. The undue pressure would be enormous on Niemi..

So... No deal..... Slats has to figure out another way to get a #1 center... Hank is not going anywhere... Why change the strength on this team....


Last edited by msv957: 07-31-2010 at 09:39 AM.
msv957 is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 10:40 AM
  #79
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiDubiDoo View Post
Its not so much that I think what your saying is stupid, I just don't think you've given it any real thought and thats why people are saying its ludicris. Look at it this way, if the Hawks let Neimi go its gonna be because he commands in the 5+ million range. If we bring back Hanks value in a trade (2 forwards that your proposing) I would expec those 2 forwards cost us 10 million minimum (i.e. Kopitar and Brown, I'm not trading hank for a package that includes unproven players). Add to that the 5 mil. Neimi gets and were bringing back 15 million in salary. Thats a net salary gain of 8 million, maybe 6 after waiving of 2 guys to make room.
Fact is right now we dont have 6 dollars in cap space, let alone, 6 million. This team should have one plan and one plan only-
Bury redden, resign staal, and develop our youth to compliment the core (HANK, gabby, cally, anisimov, staal, del zotto, girardi)

the original article alludes to Neimi getting less than 4m, and I wouldn't advocate picking up $10m in forwards. This $15m scenario is a product of your imagination created for your strawman arguement.

The facts are that this team isn't winning anything significant anytime soon with Hank, it's just a question about what's best for the team now and for the future.
A younger goalie with room to grow along with a quality young top six player or two gives us some time for all the "great" prospects we have to enter the fold.

right now we stay "competitive" because of Hank but never get the high draft picks to build a team that can really compete.

again it's speculation that the original writer knows will never happen. I didn't know that you plan was the only one that should be discussed on this board.


Last edited by nyr2k2: 08-01-2010 at 08:28 AM. Reason: qdp
NikC is online now  
Old
07-31-2010, 10:58 AM
  #80
Loffen
Cup mode: ON
 
Loffen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Soft euro
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJRanger View Post
So that's a 'trade Gaborik' thread and a 'trade Lundqvist' thread we've had this Summer. Terrific.
Yeah, this board has been pretty unbearable this summer...

Trading Lundqvist or Gabs = Retardation

Loffen is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 11:33 AM
  #81
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
 
ReggieDunlop68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitto79 View Post
cocaine is a powerful drug
I agree. What is the OP on?


I understand it's just offseason speculation, but good lord!!!

ReggieDunlop68 is online now  
Old
07-31-2010, 11:47 AM
  #82
Khris Creider
Registered User
 
Khris Creider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 2,503
vCash: 500
never

Khris Creider is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 01:12 PM
  #83
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,941
vCash: 500
The list of players I would trade Henrik Lundqvist for straight up i can list on one hand.

hell i could list on 2 fingers. AO and Crosby. Outside of that, there is no player i would trade my franchise goalie for straight up.

None.

Inferno is online now  
Old
07-31-2010, 01:47 PM
  #84
TrueBlueNorwegian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Norway
Posts: 353
vCash: 500
This is insane! :-D Niemi had a much much much better team infront of him than Lundqvist did. That`s why he was able to acomplish what he did last season. Lunqvist is hands down a better goaltender than Niemi imo.

TrueBlueNorwegian is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 02:26 PM
  #85
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
the shred of reasoning to me, behind moving Hank has always been this:

Hank has been masking the many flaws this team has had for several years now. If not for him we might have drafted first to third overall these past years. We have ONE elite top six forward that we've had to trade to get, and even he is not a lock to stay healthy.

What i don't understand is how so many here who call it blasphemy to suggest such a thing are also clamouring for a rebuild and a youth program, that will take 2-3x longer possibly the way we are set up now. Plus IF these kids pan out, you have a much older Lundqvist with alot of milage on him. His prime years maybe in their twilight by the time all is said and done.


The issue was never that Henrik was better than Neimi, that's understood. Considering the sea of fictious trade proposals that appear on this board it's awfully hypocritical how some are reacting here.

NikC is online now  
Old
07-31-2010, 02:44 PM
  #86
Rangerfans
Registered User
 
Rangerfans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Hank has been masking the many flaws this team has had for several years now. If not for him we might have drafted first to third overall these past years. We have ONE elite top six forward that we've had to trade to get, and even he is not a lock to stay healthy.

What i don't understand is how so many here who call it blasphemy to suggest such a thing are also clamouring for a rebuild and a youth program, that will take 2-3x longer possibly the way we are set up now. Plus IF these kids pan out, you have a much older Lundqvist with alot of milage on him. His prime years maybe in their twilight by the time all is said and done.


The issue was never that Henrik was better than Neimi, that's understood. Considering the sea of fictious trade proposals that appear on this board it's awfully hypocritical how some are reacting here.
Here's the thing: there are teams out there that have successfully build their team without the requirement of drafted 1-3.

Second: You're going to get rid one of the top goalies in the league for some offense? Terrific, but now we're completely negating our defensive and goalie woes. Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

Third: We still lack secondary scoring. The problem wasn't that we need another guy to net 40-50 goals like Gaborik. The problem is we need our supporting players to actually hit above 20 goals this year.

Rangerfans is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 03:05 PM
  #87
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
hah.

RangerFan10 is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 03:07 PM
  #88
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,320
vCash: 500
Niemi isn't bad. Henrik is great. There are many degrees of quality between the two of them.

The way I see it, we could trade Hank, let him win his SC or go on a serious run with another team now and use a trade for Niemi or a Niemi character to get more offense. BUT offense is only our main problem because we have Hank to plug the holes in the D. This proposal operates entirely on the fact that offense is the only problem that this team has, which just isn't true. Our D is pretty weak as of now and Henrik's stellar play is what covers up some of that. If we lose him we instantly need a really, really elite D man to join the team or else we're going to be losing just as many games but with higher scores. We'd get another scorer or two, which would be great, but is anyone honestly comfortable with our current D corps and Niemi holding down half of the ice? I'm not.

Niemi was good on a great team. Should we have traded Gabby for Byguflien? I mean, he's younger and he won a cup! This idea makes about as much sense as that one.

haveandare is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 03:31 PM
  #89
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 NikC View Post
the shred of reasoning to me, behind moving Hank has always been this:

Hank has been masking the many flaws this team has had for several years now. If not for him we might have drafted first to third overall these past years. We have ONE elite top six forward that we've had to trade to get, and even he is not a lock to stay healthy.

What i don't understand is how so many here who call it blasphemy to suggest such a thing are also clamouring for a rebuild and a youth program, that will take 2-3x longer possibly the way we are set up now. Plus IF these kids pan out, you have a much older Lundqvist with alot of milage on him. His prime years maybe in their twilight by the time all is said and done.


The issue was never that Henrik was better than Neimi, that's understood. Considering the sea of fictious trade proposals that appear on this board it's awfully hypocritical how some are reacting here.
Not that I blame Jagr. But at the start of the 05'-06' season, the Rangers were picked to finish in the cellar. Sure Lundqvist has been great. But the re emergence of Jagr (playing out of his mind with his buddy Straka), Nylander having the most success he's ever had in the NHL, and a young Prucha scoring 30 goals had a lot more to do with it.
After that year, we brought in Avery who almost single handedly ensured the Rangers would get into the playoffs for the next two years. Shanny had a big year (for his age) with the team, Gomez and Drury's help with secondary scoring in 07'-08' gave the Rangers fans probably the most exciting season since we bowed out to Philly in the ECF. There's probably more....
But too many contributing variables there in which I'll admit, Lundqvist was a part of. But he would be the last person I would point the finger too for the Rangers "failure to" become bottom feeders.
He was a young goalie looking to make a living and a name for himself. Weekes went down and "Hank" took over convincingly.

gravytrain6t is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 06:51 PM
  #90
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravytrain6t View Post
Not that I blame Jagr. But at the start of the 05'-06' season, the Rangers were picked to finish in the cellar. Sure Lundqvist has been great. But the re emergence of Jagr (playing out of his mind with his buddy Straka), Nylander having the most success he's ever had in the NHL, and a young Prucha scoring 30 goals had a lot more to do with it.
The Rangers were tied for 4th best in the league in goals allowed that year. That stat had nothing whatsoever to do with Jagr's, Straka's, Nylander's, and Prucha's games. Frankly, it also had little to with the team's defense or Kevin Weekes and his miserable .895 save percentage.

The team was tied for 12th in goals produced that year.

To suggest that Lundqvist's contributions in goal had less to do with Jagr's, Straka's, Nylander's, and Prucha's offensive production is to ignore the facts.

In 06-07 the Rangers were 7th in goals allowed and 15th in goals scored.
In 07-08 the Rangers were 4th in goals allowed and tied for 23rd in goals scored.
In 08-09 the Rangers were 6th in goals allowed and tied for 25th in goals scored.
In 09-10 the Rangers were 9th in goals allowed and tied for 19th in goals scored.

Sorry, but if "he would be the last person [you] would point the finger too for the Rangers 'failure to' become bottom feeders," then you simply aren't paying attention. If you're 23rd in the league in goals scored and your goalie ISN'T making you top-five in goals against, you're picking top-five in the draft. The same is true if you're 25th in the league in scoring and your goalie isn't keeping you in the top-five range for goals against.

The fact is that NikC - for whatever one may think of the trade proposal - is entirely right in saying "Hank has been masking the many flaws this team has had for several years now."

All that said, I would have no problem trading Lundqvist in the right deal. History shows - hell Niemi shows - you don't need a great goalie to win a championship.

dedalus is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 07:04 PM
  #91
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
The Rangers were tied for 4th best in the league in goals allowed that year. That stat had nothing whatsoever to do with Jagr's, Straka's, Nylander's, and Prucha's games. Frankly, it also had little to with the team's defense or Kevin Weekes and his miserable .895 save percentage.

The team was tied for 12th in goals produced that year.

To suggest that Lundqvist's contributions in goal had less to do with Jagr's, Straka's, Nylander's, and Prucha's offensive production is to ignore the facts.

In 06-07 the Rangers were 7th in goals allowed and 15th in goals scored.
In 07-08 the Rangers were 4th in goals allowed and tied for 23rd in goals scored.
In 08-09 the Rangers were 6th in goals allowed and tied for 25th in goals scored.
In 09-10 the Rangers were 9th in goals allowed and tied for 19th in goals scored.

Sorry, but if "he would be the last person [you] would point the finger too for the Rangers 'failure to' become bottom feeders," then you simply aren't paying attention. If you're 23rd in the league in goals scored and your goalie ISN'T making you top-five in goals against, you're picking top-five in the draft. The same is true if you're 25th in the league in scoring and your goalie isn't keeping you in the top-five range for goals against.

The fact is that NikC - for whatever one may think of the trade proposal - is entirely right in saying "Hank has been masking the many flaws this team has had for several years now."

All that said, I would have no problem trading Lundqvist in the right deal. History shows - hell Niemi shows - you don't need a great goalie to win a championship.
History also shows a great-elite goalie can carry a team to a championship. history also shows you need great -elite players plural. hank is a great-elite player, so is Gabs.

History shows you need some role players and complimentary scorers. Do the Rangers have any? No. You're looking to one non problem while ignoring the real problem.

JimmyStart* is offline  
Old
07-31-2010, 07:15 PM
  #92
pwoz
Registered User
 
pwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 500
Hank is the best goalie in the world.

pwoz is online now  
Old
07-31-2010, 08:22 PM
  #93
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deriik2020 View Post
History also shows a great-elite goalie can carry a team to a championship. history also shows you need great -elite players plural. hank is a great-elite player, so is Gabs.

History shows you need some role players and complimentary scorers. Do the Rangers have any? No. You're looking to one non problem while ignoring the real problem.
The Rangers don't have role players? I think that's exactly the problem as in the Rangers have too many role players.

Barbara Underhill is online now  
Old
07-31-2010, 11:48 PM
  #94
The Perfect Paradox
Beyond Good and Evil
 
The Perfect Paradox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,572
vCash: 500
In a short answer: Absolutely not.

The Perfect Paradox is offline  
Old
08-01-2010, 12:18 AM
  #95
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 37,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
The list of players I would trade Henrik Lundqvist for straight up i can list on one hand.

hell i could list on 2 fingers. AO and Crosby. Outside of that, there is no player i would trade my franchise goalie for straight up.

None.

And Stamkos for me. I see him potting 50+ and going over 100 points next season. he'll be right up there with Crosby and AO and is only 20 years old.

darko is offline  
Old
08-01-2010, 12:33 AM
  #96
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
lolololol jan levine!


imagine if we had a thread for every ranger rumor that came out of hockeybuzz....oooooo god

Puckface NYR* is offline  
Old
08-01-2010, 08:05 AM
  #97
mm11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedwrister17 View Post
Niemi is not the reason why the Hawks won the cup. They won in spite of him because the rest of their team is pretty amazing. It doesn't hurt that the opposing goalie was Michael Leighton lol. Put Henrik on either team and that series would've been entirely different. There were some seriously weak goals in Those games... especially game 1
not to piss in your cereal but Hank let in some weak goals during his first playoff year that I recall being swept by the devils. Now not comparing a Stanley cup winning team to the 2005-2006 ranger team but let's face that team had a 123 point player in All time great Jagr that Towes and Kane will be lucky to ever reach that point total and to do it in their twilights would be even more remarkable. Then sprinkle in 70 plus seasons from Straka and Nylander and a 30 goal campaign from Prucha there was not a shortage of offensive help for the king that is for sure. The defense that Hank played behind was not in the stratosphere that Niemi had but I am sure Niemi could do no worse in the playoffs than Hank that rookie year. I recall him pulling a goose egg in wins racking in a 8.35 save percentage and a 4.41 GAA.

Have to admit how much better would Hank of done his rookie year behind the Hawks? He couldent improve on what Niemi accomplished at all and that was win a Stanley Cup. Would he have had better numbers? Most likely, but does it matter? My point is , yes there will be a drop off with Niemi replacing Hank but getting Carter in return may be worth it. a true young #1 center will ease that slight drop off plus you have a goalie that has won NHL hardware unlike Hank who owns the precious Vezina nominations everyone is so proud of.

I know it sounds crazy but for arguement sakes it does make the rangers more powerful, deeper and younger. Niemi has proven he can win it all on the NHL stage and Hank has not. hank has proven he can be elite in spurts during the regular season and do it year after year. That speaks volumes but he so far has not taken decent NHL ranger teams deep in the playoffs yet and that must speak volumes too. It would take one ballsy GM to do this as you have a sure bet#1 NHL goalie in the King but like the blog I believe said, Hank has more miles to include (2) olympics and major games playes for 6 NHL seasons now plus playoffs.

Law of averages say that Hank may slow down. Let's face it, he has been relatively healthy and in fact the blue shirts have been pretty healthy compared to other NHL teams the last five years. Have to believe Hank has maybe 3-5 so called Elite seasons left which will carve out a wonderful 10-11 year run at that level which is un heard off. What else can you ask from a 7th round pick? After that your playing with house money I believe. Niemi is a year younger but with far less NHL games played on his treads already with a Stanley Cup on the resume. Who knows, Maybe Niemi can elevate his level of play and inch closer to that Elite vezina nomination level everyone seems to love. If that was the case getting Carter in return would instantly get this GM an extended contract because of all the deep playoff runs.

carter as your #1 center, slotting Stepan or Duby as your #2 one day could be pretty darn significant. Throw in Gaborik with Carter on the PP and that Righty lefty combo would be lethal. I believe Hank would be forgotten soon enough as Niemi could shut the door so to speak as well....

In conclusion, it makes a ton of sense that the return for Hank would be young 6'3 25 year old first round pick whom already potted 46 goals in a NHl season. I also have reason to believe Torts could turn Carter into an Elite NHler as well. Will the rangers do it, no chance! It's like trading Walter Payton or a Lawrence Taylor. One thing is for sure, the rangers better get it right in the next few years because Hank's shelf life is getting dusty. Its now or never I believe because the treads are starting to wear alittle and its not even rainy season yet.

mm11 is offline  
Old
08-01-2010, 08:30 AM
  #98
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,602
vCash: 50
Awards:
We're done here.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is online now  
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 10:44 PM.

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

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