HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Brooks "Sean Avery out of the picture?", "What if Wade Redden"...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-08-2010, 03:10 PM
  #76
Mr Atoz
I hid the Atavachron
 
Mr Atoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by playstationline View Post
Such a ridiculous article. Not Brooks' best by far. He's such a Sather hater he brings upon the question of Redden playing better. Give me a break.

Brooks is not a Sather hater. Brooks is a Ranger hater and he has been for at least 30+ years.

Most of you don't go back that far but Brooks was the Post beat writer for the islanders and became so enamored with them (just like Fischler) that they gave Brooks the Cup to take home as if he were a player. And he has been anti Ranger ever since.

He has been forced to be the Ranger beat writer because the other old time beat writers like Hugh Delano are gone and the Rangers dominate NY hockey.

Brooks revels in Ranger failures and when the Rangers won in 1994 Larry Brooks still wrote a negative column on June 15, 1994 if you can believe it.

Brooks spins everything negative with the Rangers.

What if Wade Redden plays well this training camp? Well what if the f***ing ayatollah gets Bar Mitzvah'd?

If Wade Redden raises his game because he's about to be forced into retirement then where the hell was he the rest of the time? If he suddenly gets good enough to barely make the team then I'd hate him even more than I do now.

Very few specific things that Larry Brooks ever predicts come true. He's right up there with those fake psychics. But you can guarantee that anything that Brooks predicts will be bad for the Rangers.

Mr Atoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:14 PM
  #77
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,290
vCash: 500
I cant help but laugh at people that call Larry Brooks' a "sensationalist" when, for the most part, he brings up legitimate concerns and issues surrounding the team....and at this point in time, as has been the case for the last few years, there are many.

First off, regarding Avery, one of the things that Brooks sensationalizes the most is Avery's abilities. There such a large portion of the fanbase that overrate his effectiveness as well, so you'd think they'd be behind him on this. Nonetheless, one quick glance at the roster and its awfully difficult to find a top 9 forward spot for him.

The Redden issue, in my mind, is very accurate and a very real possibility. Some folks like to insist that we have a blueline that would benefit from just about anybody replacing Redden. That just simply isnt true. Staal, Rozsival, Girardi, and Del Zotto are guaranteed spots...The rest of the defense is a HUGE question mark, and that includes Redden. Salaries aside, and Redden is maybe the 5th best defenseman at our disposal, and certainly a top 6 when his main competition is Eminger, who stinks, McDonagh, who is coming straight out of college and never played an NHL game, and Gilroy, who has the upper body strength of a teenage girl.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:21 PM
  #78
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I cant help but laugh at people that call Larry Brooks' a "sensationalist" when, for the most part, he brings up legitimate concerns and issues surrounding the team....and at this point in time, as has been the case for the last few years, there are many.

First off, regarding Avery, one of the things that Brooks sensationalizes the most is Avery's abilities. There such a large portion of the fanbase that overrate his effectiveness as well, so you'd think they'd be behind him on this. Nonetheless, one quick glance at the roster and its awfully difficult to find a top 9 forward spot for him.

The Redden issue, in my mind, is very accurate and a very real possibility. Some folks like to insist that we have a blueline that would benefit from just about anybody replacing Redden. That just simply isnt true. Staal, Rozsival, Girardi, and Del Zotto are guaranteed spots...The rest of the defense is a HUGE question mark, and that includes Redden. Salaries aside, and Redden is maybe the 5th best defenseman at our disposal, and certainly a top 6 when his main competition is Eminger, who stinks, McDonagh, who is coming straight out of college and never played an NHL game, and Gilroy, who has the upper body strength of a teenage girl.
But it does benefit from just about anybody replacing Redden. Start with McDonagh, Gilroy, Sauer and Valentenko. At best Redden because of experience is only a little bit better than any of them. At that point the cap space he takes up eclipses the whole issue. He's not worth keeping under any circumstances. Eminger is close enough in ability and a lot cheaper. We could maybe use the cap space for something worthwhile.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:22 PM
  #79
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
Brooks is not a Sather hater. Brooks is a Ranger hater and he has been for at least 30+ years.

Most of you don't go back that far but Brooks was the Post beat writer for the islanders and became so enamored with them (just like Fischler) that they gave Brooks the Cup to take home as if he were a player. And he has been anti Ranger ever since.

He has been forced to be the Ranger beat writer because the other old time beat writers like Hugh Delano are gone and the Rangers dominate NY hockey.

Brooks revels in Ranger failures and when the Rangers won in 1994 Larry Brooks still wrote a negative column on June 15, 1994 if you can believe it.

Brooks spins everything negative with the Rangers.

What if Wade Redden plays well this training camp? Well what if the f***ing ayatollah gets Bar Mitzvah'd?

If Wade Redden raises his game because he's about to be forced into retirement then where the hell was he the rest of the time? If he suddenly gets good enough to barely make the team then I'd hate him even more than I do now.

Very few specific things that Larry Brooks ever predicts come true. He's right up there with those fake psychics. But you can guarantee that anything that Brooks predicts will be bad for the Rangers.
Again, maybe its time to criticize Brooks a little less and pay more attention to how this franchise has been run the last 15 years....and really, how its been run the past 70 years.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:26 PM
  #80
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
But it does benefit from just about anybody replacing Redden. Start with McDonagh, Gilroy, Sauer and Valentenko. At best Redden because of experience is only a little bit better than any of them. At that point the cap space he takes up eclipses the whole issue. He's not worth keeping under any circumstances. Eminger is close enough in ability and a lot cheaper. We could maybe use the cap space for something worthwhile.
Right, and the absurd cap hit is really the only issue here, because in a vacuum, those 4 defenseman you listed have huge question marks associated with them regarding what they can provide in the NHL next season. And Eminger? Please....

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:28 PM
  #81
Mr Atoz
I hid the Atavachron
 
Mr Atoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Again, maybe its time to criticize Brooks a little less and pay more attention to how this franchise has been run the last 15 years....and really, how its been run the past 70 years.
How the Rangers are run and whether Brooks hates the Rangers for his own personal reasons really have nothing to do with each other. The only thing that I will say in Brooks' favor is that he didn't jump on the devils bandwagon as a Ranger hater the way that Fischler did.

Mr Atoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:32 PM
  #82
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Right, and the absurd cap hit is really the only issue here, because in a vacuum, those 4 defenseman you listed have huge question marks associated with them regarding what they can provide in the NHL next season. And Eminger? Please....
If you think Eminger is worse than Redden that's fine but I don't agree. They're about on the same level only one is a hell of a lot cheaper.

And Redden hasn't gotten better since coming here. If anything he's getting worse. He can't keep up. He provides almost no offense. He doesn't play physical. Eminger at least skates better. Wade has had a nice career but it's also run its course and it has to be stopped. Better to do it now--live with rookie mistakes or whatever. Redden is not worth anywhere near the outlay.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:32 PM
  #83
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
How the Rangers are run and whether Brooks hates the Rangers for his own personal reasons really have nothing to do with each other. The only thing that I will say in Brooks' favor is that he didn't jump on the devils bandwagon as a Ranger hater the way that Fischler did.
It really does though. Many of Brooks articles center around the foolish decisions this organization makes, and with 1 cup in the last 70 years, there have been many. I love the Rangers as much as anybody, but I can also look past my fandom and view these decisions objectively. Once you get past that hurdle and stop thinking this is some sort of personal vendetta, I bet you'd appreciate Brooks more.

Hell, the fact that hes the only NY sports writer that even talks hockey in the summer on a regular basis is enough for me.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:35 PM
  #84
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
If you think Eminger is worse than Redden that's fine but I don't agree. They're about on the same level only one is a hell of a lot cheaper.

And Redden hasn't gotten better since coming here. If anything he's getting worse. He can't keep up. He provides almost no offense. He doesn't play physical. Eminger at least skates better. Wade has had a nice career but it's also run its course and it has to be stopped. Better to do it now--live with rookie mistakes or whatever. Redden is not worth anywhere near the outlay.
Simple question, salary aside, do you think Wade Redden is a top 6 defenseman on this team? Judging by your assessment on Eminger, I'll certainly take your opinion with a grain of salt, but Im curious as to the answer....hopefully it doesnt involve blind faith in prospects and/or an incredibly optimistic view of Eminger's abilities.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:45 PM
  #85
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Simple question, salary aside, do you think Wade Redden is a top 6 defenseman on this team? Judging by your assessment on Eminger, I'll certainly take your opinion with a grain of salt, but Im curious as to the answer....hopefully it doesnt involve blind faith in prospects and/or an incredibly optimistic view of Eminger's abilities.
Simple answer. I'm not sure. And if it's close he loses.

1. Staal
2. MDZ
3. Girardi
4. Rozsival
5. my inclination is to go with McDonagh--based on seeing him a few times and based on reports the Rangers think he's ready.
6. then falls between Gilroy, Redden, Eminger, Sauer. I might add Valentenko but he's been injured too much and that hurts Sauer a bit too.

For the cap hit I don't think there is any way to keep Redden under the circumstances. I have an idea as well that the Rangers might bring in a tryout at camp if they feel the need for another vet--kind of like they did with Semenov last year. It's almost unbelievable that someone wants to lobby for this guy. 4 more years at $6.5 mil. He was supposed to help out the offense. 14 ****ing points last year. He could hardly make it up the ice and get back to defend. He doesn't hit anything. From all accounts he's a good guy and had been a very good player but now he's a big ****ing zero on the ice.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:50 PM
  #86
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,240
vCash: 500
Brooks is good when it comes to getting insider information from the organization. However, when he editorializes and interjects his own opinion, it gets messy. He is a contrarian and often contradicts himself.

He blasted Redden for most of the season, mocking him when he actually showed some emotion and dropped the gloves. Brooks never hesitated to take a shot at Redden last year, but now he's concerned that Redden may outplay every other defenseman in camp? Come on now.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:57 PM
  #87
Mr Atoz
I hid the Atavachron
 
Mr Atoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
Brooks is good when it comes to getting insider information from the organization. However, when he editorializes and interjects his own opinion, it gets messy. He is a contrarian and often contradicts himself.

He blasted Redden for most of the season, mocking him when he actually showed some emotion and dropped the gloves. Brooks never hesitated to take a shot at Redden last year, but now he's concerned that Redden may outplay every other defenseman in camp? Come on now.
Which is exactly what I mean by Brooks looking for negative things to say about the Rangers. Only Brooks could come up with a premise that spins it so that one of the worst free agent signings in history who is despised by the fans will make his situation even worse by playing too well.

Mr Atoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 03:58 PM
  #88
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Again, maybe its time to criticize Brooks a little less and pay more attention to how this franchise has been run the last 15 years....and really, how its been run the past 70 years.
Hey, we all agree that this organization hasn't exactly been a model for winning championships, but with Brooks, he never seems to acknowledge when the Rangers do something good. I always laugh at the fact he gets awfully quiet when the Rangers are on a good run, but then he comes back hard as soon as they begin to struggle.

All Brooks cares about is getting attention, not exactly writing smart hockey articles. Otherwise, he wouldn't have mentioned things like the Rangers never going after Orpik (they did, only to be turned down), McDonagh potentially not signing, and now this whole thing with Redden.

ocarina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 04:01 PM
  #89
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHotRock View Post
boogard would be fine by me if you took a million off of his salary. i don't mind a guy on the roster who plays 5 minutes or less but can literally destroy anyone on the opposing team. it doesn't hurt to have a dude like that on your team....but to pay him 1.65 mil is outrageous.

and callahan and avery are very different animals. cally is an above average to good penalty killer and a good shot blocker. he also picks his spots much better as far as throwing hits than avery.

1.9 isn't that high for a guy like avery if he's gonna be playing 12-15 minutes a night, but i don't see it here. if he makes the team he's probably gonna spend most of the season on the 4th line.

i think we're better off preserving the cap space.
Well, yea, if Boogaard were making 1 million less, it would only be what, 3K over the league minimum? That's not bad.

But he's really overpaid for his role, IMO.

But believe me, i'll be rooting for him to somehow turn into a good player, because unless Sather can find a way to dump him after a year or two, we are stuck with him for the full 4 years.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 04:09 PM
  #90
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Well, yea, if Boogaard were making 1 million less, it would only be what, 3K over the league minimum? That's not bad.

But he's really overpaid for his role, IMO.

But believe me, i'll be rooting for him to somehow turn into a good player, because unless Sather can find a way to dump him after a year or two, we are stuck with him for the full 4 years.
Boogaard's cap hit is $1.625 mil.... if you subtract $1 mil from that he's only making like $75K over league minimum... Plus we're not stuck with him for any single year of his contract... He can be sent to Hartford and his cap hit is gone....

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 04:15 PM
  #91
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Simple answer. I'm not sure. And if it's close he loses.

1. Staal
2. MDZ
3. Girardi
4. Rozsival
5. my inclination is to go with McDonagh--based on seeing him a few times and based on reports the Rangers think he's ready.
6. then falls between Gilroy, Redden, Eminger, Sauer. I might add Valentenko but he's been injured too much and that hurts Sauer a bit too.

For the cap hit I don't think there is any way to keep Redden under the circumstances. I have an idea as well that the Rangers might bring in a tryout at camp if they feel the need for another vet--kind of like they did with Semenov last year. It's almost unbelievable that someone wants to lobby for this guy. 4 more years at $6.5 mil. He was supposed to help out the offense. 14 ****ing points last year. He could hardly make it up the ice and get back to defend. He doesn't hit anything. From all accounts he's a good guy and had been a very good player but now he's a big ****ing zero on the ice.
Lets get some thing straight right away. I am certainly not "lobbying" for this guy. I do, however, think that from strictly a performance standpoint, he would be a top 6 defenseman on this team when you look at the personnel thats currently available. Thats the issue that Brooks is bringing up, not so much his salary cap implications, etc (which is why people hate him and diminish his actual value to the team, by the way).

No, whats really unbelievable is how easy some people think it is to just peg in a name as a regular NHL defenseman. Its a difficult job, one that Pavel Valetenko and his likes are nowhere near ready for. If Redden was making 2 million dollars or less, this would be a non-issue

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 04:57 PM
  #92
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Lets get some thing straight right away. I am certainly not "lobbying" for this guy. I do, however, think that from strictly a performance standpoint, he would be a top 6 defenseman on this team when you look at the personnel thats currently available. Thats the issue that Brooks is bringing up, not so much his salary cap implications, etc (which is why people hate him and diminish his actual value to the team, by the way).

No, whats really unbelievable is how easy some people think it is to just peg in a name as a regular NHL defenseman. Its a difficult job, one that Pavel Valetenko and his likes are nowhere near ready for. If Redden was making 2 million dollars or less, this would be a non-issue
Redden's not worth $4.5 mil either. Not even close. Eminger is making $1.125 mil. That's about where Redden belongs. That's what you should pay an over the hill d-man who is on a major decline who offers no offense and doesn't hit and is bottom pairing at best. I have a couple questions for you since I answered yours. Redden has 4 more years. How do you contemplate them going? When if ever would you cut the cord? Are there no younger d you would ever trust to give a shot instead? and lastly if you had to choose between lopping Avery's $1.9 mil (keeping in mind that 30-40 points is at least somewhat consistent with those numbers) or Redden's $6.5 mil which would you choose?

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 05:36 PM
  #93
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Redden's not worth $4.5 mil either. Not even close. Eminger is making $1.125 mil. That's about where Redden belongs. That's what you should pay an over the hill d-man who is on a major decline who offers no offense and doesn't hit and is bottom pairing at best. I have a couple questions for you since I answered yours. Redden has 4 more years. How do you contemplate them going? When if ever would you cut the cord? Are there no younger d you would ever trust to give a shot instead? and lastly if you had to choose between lopping Avery's $1.9 mil (keeping in mind that 30-40 points is at least somewhat consistent with those numbers) or Redden's $6.5 mil which would you choose?
First off, I said if Redden was making 2 million or less, not 2 million less. You're getting far too caught up in the salary cup number to even look at the situation a bit differently....strictly from a performance standpoint.

To answer your question, Im all for integrating the kids onto the blueline...and if Redden has to be a casualty for that to happen, so be it. But lets not fool ourselves into believing the blueline wont suffer because of it. These kids get a ton of lee-way because their young/cheap/etc, and the true nature of their effectiveness gets clouded because of that....just like how overpaid vets like Redden get mercilessly attacked.

It looks all but a guaranteed that Redden will be a salary cap casualty this season. Fine. But money aside, and given who he'd be battling for a spots, you cant convince me that Wade Redden wouldnt be at least a #6 defenseman on next year's squad. So, when a guy can still be a top 6 d-man on a flawed team, or you have to pay him 23 million+ to disappear, what would you try to do as the owner if it was your money?

As for the Avery thing, I dont know how that related to the Redden situation, but of course I'd rather have Avery on the team. All Im saying in his regard is, despite a not overly-talented forward corp, I still have a problem finding a spot for him in the top 9.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 05:47 PM
  #94
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
First off, I said if Redden was making 2 million or less, not 2 million less. You're getting far too caught up in the salary cup number to even look at the situation a bit differently....strictly from a performance standpoint.

To answer your question, Im all for integrating the kids onto the blueline...and if Redden has to be a casualty for that to happen, so be it. But lets not fool ourselves into believing the blueline wont suffer because of it. These kids get a ton of lee-way because their young/cheap/etc, and the true nature of their effectiveness gets clouded because of that....just like how overpaid vets like Redden get mercilessly attacked.

It looks all but a guaranteed that Redden will be a salary cap casualty this season. Fine. But money aside, and given who he'd be battling for a spots, you cant convince me that Wade Redden wouldnt be at least a #6 defenseman on next year's squad. So, when a guy can still be a top 6 d-man on a flawed team, or you have to pay him 23 million+ to disappear, what would you try to do as the owner if it was your money?

As for the Avery thing, I dont know how that related to the Redden situation, but of course I'd rather have Avery on the team. All Im saying in his regard is, despite a not overly-talented forward corp, I still have a problem finding a spot for him in the top 9.
Well to be clear--this is the way I look at cap era NHL. That you always (as in every year) have to be integrating youth. That it made drafting well more and more an essential to having success because if you're going to have big salaries you have to offset them with smaller salaries if only just to have enough players to fill your roster. That when you make mistakes on big salaries you need more of an offset of youth. And the thing is when you can--you bury your mistakes and the sooner the better.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 09:07 PM
  #95
FromTheSide
Registered User
 
FromTheSide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 20,278
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FromTheSide Send a message via MSN to FromTheSide
I love how everything we discuss is posted on brooksy's page a week later

Avery isn't going anywhere, It's just larry stirring the summer pot, IMO.

FromTheSide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 09:11 PM
  #96
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 wolfgaze View Post
Boogaard's cap hit is $1.625 mil.... if you subtract $1 mil from that he's only making like $75K over league minimum... Plus we're not stuck with him for any single year of his contract... He can be sent to Hartford and his cap hit is gone....
About the league minimum is what a Boogard deserves in today's NHL.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 09:14 PM
  #97
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 KingWantsCup View Post
Frolov - Christensen - Gaborik
Dubinsky - Anisimov - MZA
Prospal - Drury - Callahan
Prust - Avery? - Boogaard

Drury's contract continues to hurt us. Not that Avery is the difference between us contending or not, but there's also no room for Stepan to get decent ice time because of him, unless Drury is on the fourth line. And if Drury is on the fourth line then Avery is definitely out of the picture. I'm mostly concerned about getting our key kids into our lineup now because the way things are shaping up our best shot at winning a cup will be in around 2013-2014. Gaborik and Lundqist's primes won't last forever the kids need the experience.
When you throw salary out, I'd much rather have Drury center the third line this season than Stepan. He's not going to be anywhere near ready to play in the NHL out of camp.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 09:14 PM
  #98
mti79
Registered User
 
mti79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,015
vCash: 500
Am I the only one who is thinking that if Wade Redden comes into camp in awesome shape and plays lights out all year because he knows that if he doesn't he'll be on the first bus to Hartford is a good thing? If he's making the roster then Gilroy may not and White is not guaranteed to make it either. That's over $4 Million right there... I'm sure there are moves that could be made. Carry Sauer as your 7th for $500K? MZA may not be a guarantee to make the roster no matter how much all of us want him to. Who knows, maybe he'll need some time in Hartford.

I'd like to make it clear that I am in no way advocating Wade Redden staying in Manhattan. I'm just saying that if he shows up ready to go and plays well all year, well, that's just fine by me.

mti79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 09:15 PM
  #99
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 msg View Post
I think Prospal will be at center anyway. The rangers are too thin there. Its either him or Dubi that gets moved to center. White is not the answer . I think he will be in Hartford. And Boogaard sucks he cant play hockey he will not dress every game. I think there will be a spot for Avery dont know if it is 3rd or 4th line.
Even without white you still have Christensen, Anisimov, Drury, and Boyle. There's no reason to have to put Prospal at center.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2010, 09:17 PM
  #100
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
Even without white you still have Christensen, Anisimov, Drury, and Boyle. There's no reason to have to put Prospal at center.
Thats one of the worst groups of centers in the entire NHL, so I wouldnt rule anything out to be honest.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   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 06:15 AM.

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

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