HFBoards

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

What Would It Take For You to Give Up Lundqvist?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2010, 03:26 PM
  #101
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,063
vCash: 873
.

What it would take for me to move Lundqvist?

Jonathan Quick, Dustin Brown and Wayne Simmonds

or

Jon Bernier and Anze Kopitar

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 04:26 PM
  #102
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
How did that speed along the process for them? What key players on their current team did they draft the off-season after they "tanked" with their high draft picks from finishing so poorly?
Well they did get Timonen as a result of their sell-off that year. Hartnell and Parent, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Flyers went out and spent a lot of money on the FA market, just like the Rangers did... But they targeted players who are subsequently delivering for them.... Briere/Timmonen/Pronger
Timonen and Pronger were trade acquisitions not free agent signings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
You're still going to argue the Flyers did a complete rebuild huh?
The Flyers functioned differently from the Rangers earlier in the decade, and they did so in a way that was more like a rebuild than anything we've ever seen done under Sather or Smith.

Example: While the Rangers were spending their 1st round pick in the 2002 draft to acquire the 31-year-old, damaged Pavel Bure in a desperate "win-now" attempt, the Flyers were ACQUIRING a high first round pick from Tampa by trading an asset from their playoff roster. (Fedotenko who netted them Pitkanen who got them Smith & Lupul. Lupul went on to be a component in bringing Pronger to Philly.)

Example: In 2001 the Flyers, who had just lost in the conference finals, traded Daymond Langkow (their 4th highest scorer), not for a "win-now" asset, but for a 1st round pick. That first round pick is #10 overall Jeff Carter.

The difference between the Flyers and Rangers is that the Flyers didn't just draft better, they SET THEMSELVES UP to draft better. They acquired more and better first round picks which are yielding dividends now. This is something that Glen Sather refuses to do, and it's something that Smith tried only once (disastrously with Brendl).

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 04:47 PM
  #103
omgShakeNbake
 
omgShakeNbake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Long Island
Country: Greece
Posts: 95
vCash: 500
first round pick, include redden/rosi, a decent player and a thank you letter

omgShakeNbake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 05:08 PM
  #104
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacmanghostx View Post
Who's to say that Kovy won't mature into that perfect franchise player you speak of? And it's hardly fair to bring up playoff experience as dirt on Kovalchuk, especially considering he was stuck on an awful team for nearly a decade.



Defense will always be a priority in New Jersey, regardless of how potent the offense is, and the philosophy has been set in stone by Lou Lamoriello to develop every aspect of the franchise instead of having a certain role carry the team. However, it has come to pass that the defense isn't as good as it once was, and while effective, the names of Scott Stevens, Ken Daneyko, and Scott Neidermayer have never been adequately replaced since Scotty Nieds left in 2004. Granted, Lou went out an got us Anton Volchenkov (who's easily the closest thing we've had to Stevens) and Henrik Tallinder, but still, it's just not the same.

Brodeur, while still a phenomenal talent and easily one of the better netminders in the NHL, isn't what he once was, and has certainly slowed down over the years.

This can mean only one thing: The Devils need to start putting more pucks in the net. And hopefully, with this new-look New Jersey team, that will become a reality.
All I'm saying is that my definition of a franchise player, which I guess is seen by others as generational type talent, is the type of player that can carry a team. Kovalchuk's proven he's not that, and he's 27, I think it's what you see is what you get with him at this point. He's had decent enough teams where to be considered in the Crosby, Ovechkin, etc. conversation the Thrashers should've at least had ONE playoff win with him.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 05:09 PM
  #105
Ian
Mike York fan club
 
Ian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,608
vCash: 500
Flyers also gave up two 2nds with Fedo for that first where they drafted Pitkanen, which really isn't as great of value as you want to make it sound like.

Langkow was an RFA when they traded him as well, and he was only tradeable because they signed two other offensive players that offseason. And although they did get Carter out of it, Langkow isn't exactly trash; he had 7 consecutive 20+ goal seasons after being traded, including two years with 30+.

The Flyers have clearly taken more risks, but to act as if they've walked on gold the past few years because they went to the SCF this year is absurd. They will be dangerously close to a Blackhawks sell-off next year if certain things work in their favor.

Ian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 05:10 PM
  #106
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby View Post
Is Kovy a franchise player?? Kovy not being a game changer is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and kills any credibility you have - the guy led his franchise scoring 40-50 goals a season for how many years? ... He is the exact definition if a franchise player. Are you kidding me? Since the kid came into the league - he has more goals than anyone. Yea, he didn't make the playoffs bc his teams were awful. Was Roy Halladay not a franchise guy bc the Jays were terrible? Is Rick Nash not a franchise player bc the Jacket's don't have enough talent? Is he the best player in hockey? No. but but put him on the Wings, and he is a god.
Where are Rick Nash's Marian Hossa's and Marc Savard's?

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 07:51 PM
  #107
DubiDubiDoo
Registered User
 
DubiDubiDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Garden City, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,927
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DubiDubiDoo
Is it just me, or are people way undervaluing goalies in this thread-
Goalies have the single biggest impact on a playoff series, they dont play 24 minutes a game, they play 60.
These are the guys that have won the cups since 1980-
Billy Smith
Grant Fuhr
Patrick Roy
Mike Vernon
Bill Ranford
Tom Barrasso
Mike Richter
Martin Broduer
Chris Osgood
Eddie Belfour
Domenik Hasek
Nikolai Khabibulin
Cam Ward
JS Giguere
MA Fluery
A. Niemi

Thats only 16 diffrent goalies in 30 years. Yes a great team is necessary to win the cup, but as I look back over this list there are only a few goalies that werent Top goalies in the league. 99% of the time you dont win the stanley cup with an average goalie, the bolded goalies are all top quality, only two were average, and as far as Ward, there was nothing average about his play that season

DubiDubiDoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 08:34 PM
  #108
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiDubiDoo View Post
Is it just me, or are people way undervaluing goalies in this thread-
Goalies have the single biggest impact on a playoff series, they dont play 24 minutes a game, they play 60.
These are the guys that have won the cups since 1980-
Billy Smith
Grant Fuhr
Patrick Roy
Mike Vernon
Bill Ranford
Tom Barrasso
Mike Richter
Martin Broduer
Chris Osgood
Eddie Belfour
Domenik Hasek
Nikolai Khabibulin
Cam Ward
JS Giguere
MA Fluery
A. Niemi

Thats only 16 diffrent goalies in 30 years. Yes a great team is necessary to win the cup, but as I look back over this list there are only a few goalies that werent Top goalies in the league. 99% of the time you dont win the stanley cup with an average goalie, the bolded goalies are all top quality, only two were average, and as far as Ward, there was nothing average about his play that season
The thing is it's a buyer's market for goaltenders right now. There are a lot of guys in back-up roles, splitting time or in the minors that could be the next top 10 goaltenders Josh Harding, Jonathan Bernier, Varlamov, Neuvrith, O. Pavalec, Jonas Gustavsson, etc.

You also have guys that have had their playing time, and could have breakout seasons or establish themselves as perennial top goalies like Steve Mason, Tuuka Rask, Pikka Renne, Brian Elliott

On top of that you've got some names available on the trade market like Tomas Vokoun, Tim Thomas.

If you look at teams that have made the cup finals post lockout, you've got guys like Dwayne Roloson, Antii Niemi, Michael Leighton/Brian Boucher that got their teams there. So while it certainly helps to have an elite goaltender and history tells us that having one can get you far, it's just much cheaper and gives teams a better chance to put more value into top forwards and d-men than it does top goaltenders.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 05:06 AM
  #109
WheresBarnaby
Registered User
 
WheresBarnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,607
vCash: 500
Luongo + the twins

WheresBarnaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 05:56 AM
  #110
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,667
vCash: 500
It would take some kind of massive overpayment, like Toews, Seabrook, and Crowford(However that goalies name is spelt). Or like Stamkos, Hedman, and Tokarski.


Then sign Niemi lol

UAGoalieGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 07:16 AM
  #111
DubiDubiDoo
Registered User
 
DubiDubiDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Garden City, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,927
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DubiDubiDoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
The thing is it's a buyer's market for goaltenders right now. There are a lot of guys in back-up roles, splitting time or in the minors that could be the next top 10 goaltenders Josh Harding, Jonathan Bernier, Varlamov, Neuvrith, O. Pavalec, Jonas Gustavsson, etc.

You also have guys that have had their playing time, and could have breakout seasons or establish themselves as perennial top goalies like Steve Mason, Tuuka Rask, Pikka Renne, Brian Elliott

On top of that you've got some names available on the trade market like Tomas Vokoun, Tim Thomas.

If you look at teams that have made the cup finals post lockout, you've got guys like Dwayne Roloson, Antii Niemi, Michael Leighton/Brian Boucher that got their teams there. So while it certainly helps to have an elite goaltender and history tells us that having one can get you far, it's just much cheaper and gives teams a better chance to put more value into top forwards and d-men than it does top goaltenders.
I complete agree with the fact that goaltenders never return their value in a trade, I guess what I'm trying to argue though is that with an elite goaltender not only are your cup chances higher, but I also think it amounts to increased longevity of success. I think what we've been seeing post lockout is teams being put together for a one year run, which may be the way it has to work from now on. My biggest concern with trading lundqvist is that he's a known entity that wins games for us. Prospects and picks would never be near enough to replace him, I'd need roster players that equate to more wins than hank brings.
But just to reiterate, I do understand the reduced value of goalies in the trade market, I just think some are estimating how effective they are when it comes to sustained success. If Sather wasnt a complete moron I honestly believe we would be in the playoffs every year since the lockout, we've regressed do to poor player and personel management.
Just as an example though, I think the blackhawks are a cup contender this year with Hank on the squad, even with the dismatling thats occured, they still have some exceptional players, but you don't need to have the best team on the ice to win when you have an exceptional goalie.

DubiDubiDoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 09:40 AM
  #112
DekeR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdEye View Post
I love Hank and probably wouldn't trade him at this point. If we still haven't won anything or have not even formed any semblance of an actual team in about two years I would strongly consider it though. He will be around 29 and will still probably have decent value

I think I'm slowly accepting the fact that you don't really need a great goalie to win a championship. Of course I'm weighing that with the fact that he's my favorite player and I'd prefer to continue watching him here
Totally agree with that assessment. The last 5 Cups have been won by an elite team with good goaltending except for Carolina and Ward. Your goaltending need not be world class but by the same token he needs to be top 3 in performance for that team.

DekeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 10:36 AM
  #113
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
Flyers also gave up two 2nds with Fedo for that first where they drafted Pitkanen, which really isn't as great of value as you want to make it sound like ... they did get Carter out of it, Langkow isn't exactly trash; he had 7 consecutive 20+ goal seasons after being traded, including two years with 30+.
The post isn't about value. It's about a business model. Wolfgaze's position was that the Flyers didn't go through a long period of losing in order to "rebuild," and so they could presumably be a model for the Rangers doing the same.

My reply was that the Flyers were operating differently than the Rangers have been. For that reason, one cannot easily point to them and say, "Oh yes, that can be us."

It can be us if we change our business model and start shipping roster assets for futures commodities rather than always looking to plug this year's holes (as in Tyutin-for-Zherdev).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
to act as if they've walked on gold the past few years because they went to the SCF this year is absurd.
I'll assume this is not directed at me, since I wrote nothing NEAR "the Flyers walked on gold the past few years."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
They will be dangerously close to a Blackhawks sell-off next year if certain things work in their favor.
Sure. This is inevitable in a capped league unless a team can get players to buy into a "winning franchise" discount a la the Heat or Patriots.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 10:55 AM
  #114
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiDubiDoo View Post
you don't need to have the best team on the ice to win when you have an exceptional goalie.
That's true but it helps a LOT, and the better team wins more often than not.

Hank IS an exceptional goalie, yet he hasn't made it out of the second round for the simple reason that he hasn't played behind the best team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiDubiDoo View Post
99% of the time you dont win the stanley cup with an average goalie
An average goalie won't cut it. You need one who's at least good, but there are a number of those around the league, and as you noted, "goaltenders never return their value in a trade."

That means it's cheaper and easier to acquire a good-to-outstanding goalie than it is a good-to-outstanding forward.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 11:04 AM
  #115
ChrisKreider20
Oh Hai Guise
 
ChrisKreider20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,311
vCash: 500
from my perspective, there would need to be a replacement in there.

so deals I'd consider would be:

Lundqvist, Anisimov for Rask, Seguin
Lundqvist, Staal for Malkin Fleury
Lundqvist for M.Smith and Steve Stamkos (i'd deal Gaborik right after too though, since we wont be good for 2-3 years)
Lundqvist, Grachev for Ovechkin
Lundqvist for Miller and Roy


thats only way its worth it.

ChrisKreider20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 11:24 AM
  #116
LyNX27
Registered User
 
LyNX27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fataldogg View Post
I was viewing the thread on the trade and free agent forum labeled something to the extent "Value of: Malkin to NYR."

Penguin fans were saying Lundqvist, on his own, isn't close to Malkin's value and were proposing ludicrous returns for him. I vehemently disagree.

Than, they were showing trades such as Malkin + Fleury for Gaborik + Lundqvist + Staal and I thought that would be a TERRIBLE deal for the Rangers. I asked my brother last night too. He also said he wouldn't do that proposed trade and that if you move Lundqvist, in his prime right now, it would take a lot of consideration.

Personally, I think Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the NHL. I can understand why some people don't think so but at the very least I'd view him as a top-3 goaltender in the NHL. He is an elite goaltender who can stand on his head and steal games all on his own. He almost stole an entire series from Washington in 08-09 by himself. This year Halak did with a lot of help from Cammalleri. Unfortunately, the Rangers didn't have a potent goal scorer like that to back up Henrik.

I wouldn't trade Lundqvist for Malkin straight up. Lundqvist is our franchise and I think we would be sunk without him. Can you imagine if Fleury was out starter last year with the way how he played for the Penguins Malkin or no Malkin, we would have been a lottery team.

I put a lot of stock in goaltending and I just don't know if I would trade an elite goaltender for an elite center straight up. Would I consider it? Well, you would have to but I'd have to put a lot of thought in it. I think just in this example, that Malkin's value and the value of elite center's in general will fall with the rise of how many are up and coming. Crosby, Datsyuk, Malkin, Getzlaf and now the rise of Sedin, Backstrom, Stamkos, etc.

Any trade involving Lundqvist in my book would have to include a franchise player coming the other way (I.E. someone Kovalchuk caliber).

I think the only two players in the NHL I would move him for right away, in a package deal, would be Ovechkin / Crosby. Everything else I'd have to put a lot of serious thought into.

What do you guys think?

Malkin = Gaborik
Fleury <<<< Lundqvist
Staal just for kicks?

Malkin and Gaborik become UFA's in the same year. Gaborik scores more goals but has a potential injury problem that seems to have passed. There is no way that Staal is in that deal JUST to cover the diference between Malkin and Gaborik.

Lundqvist is so light years ahead of Fleury in goaltending that if Pittsburgh ended up doing that swap they would look like this...

XXX - Crosby - Gaborik
Kunitz - Staal - XXX
XXX - XXX - XXX
XXX - XXX - XXX

Amazing - Defense
Amazing - Defense
Amazing - Defense

Lundqvist

Who on gods green earth gives a crap who the other players on their line up are. I would pencil them for the SCF every year w/o question.

No way Rangers accept that trade, and Pitts laughs all the way to a Cup if they can put it under the cap.

Rangers counter with: Crosby + Staal for Drury + Prospal


Last edited by LyNX27: 08-10-2010 at 11:30 AM.
LyNX27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 12:18 PM
  #117
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyNX27 View Post
Malkin = Gaborik
Fleury <<<< Lundqvist
Staal just for kicks?
:
Not really true, although I still think the inclusion of Staal is overpayment on our part.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:09 PM
  #118
DubiDubiDoo
Registered User
 
DubiDubiDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Garden City, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,927
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DubiDubiDoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
That's true but it helps a LOT, and the better team wins more often than not.

Hank IS an exceptional goalie, yet he hasn't made it out of the second round for the simple reason that he hasn't played behind the best team.


An average goalie won't cut it. You need one who's at least good, but there are a number of those around the league, and as you noted, "goaltenders never return their value in a trade."

That means it's cheaper and easier to acquire a good-to-outstanding goalie than it is a good-to-outstanding forward.
True about Hank not making it out of the second round, but our team has been sooo much closer to the average talent than great talent spectrum, I would say the team that went to the second round was closer to average than it was the best that season.
I have to disagree with the part about aquiring a goalie as well, having Hank means we can get to the finals with out needing a line-up which includes (kane,toew,hossa,sharp,versteeg,buff,keith etc...) you can remove a few of those names and still win that cup. Case in point, the Caps are stacked with talent, the sharks too, but they never get the goaltending they need.
I hate to say this but broduer was a great example, nj never had to be stacked with talent, an exceptional goalie shifts the talent curve from needing loads of top skaters to just a few.
I see it this way, without Hank this team wins 20 games last year, i'm sorry, but even crosby and ovechkin dont result in a net loss of 18 games if you take them off their teams..
but again this is just my opinion, we can agree to disagree

DubiDubiDoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:21 PM
  #119
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,045
vCash: 500
In any deal for Lundqvist, we have to be getting back a potential #1 goalie. And that player better turn into a #1 goalie for the deal to be considered a success.

Given that criteria, there is probably no deal I would make right now. However, if we were to obtain a #1 goalie (draft, trade, FA), then and only then would I consider trading Hank.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:33 PM
  #120
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiDubiDoo View Post
True about Hank not making it out of the second round, but our team has been sooo much closer to the average talent than great talent spectrum, I would say the team that went to the second round was closer to average than it was the best that season.
I have to disagree with the part about aquiring a goalie as well, having Hank means we can get to the finals with out needing a line-up which includes (kane,toew,hossa,sharp,versteeg,buff,keith etc...) you can remove a few of those names and still win that cup. Case in point, the Caps are stacked with talent, the sharks too, but they never get the goaltending they need.
I hate to say this but broduer was a great example, nj never had to be stacked with talent, an exceptional goalie shifts the talent curve from needing loads of top skaters to just a few.
I see it this way, without Hank this team wins 20 games last year, i'm sorry, but even crosby and ovechkin dont result in a net loss of 18 games if you take them off their teams..
but again this is just my opinion, we can agree to disagree
yeah because two hall of fame defensemen and one of the best offensive defensemen, and one of the best defensive lines in history is the norm around the league. Also one of the years they won the cup they were the TOP scoring team in the league.

notice after Stevens and Niedermeyer left they havent even come close to sniffing the cup?

It's become more and more apparent that their DEFENSEMEN and not their Goalie carried them to championships. That was a total team, that won the cups. They never had the rely on Brodeur. Although the few times they did, Brodeur did come up big for them.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 03:42 PM
  #121
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
In any deal for Lundqvist, we have to be getting back a potential #1 goalie. And that player better turn into a #1 goalie for the deal to be considered a success.

Given that criteria, there is probably no deal I would make right now. However, if we were to obtain a #1 goalie (draft, trade, FA), then and only then would I consider trading Hank.
Gotta disagree, but depends on the return really.

If we could trade Lundqvist for a young #1 center and then sign another impact player using the cap space saved, then a middle of the road goaltender becomes a lot easier to bear.

Put it this way (disregarding cap implications, etc), would you jettison Drury and Redden if it meant bringing in 2 players that were legitimately impact players at their position if it meant also replacing Lundqvist with a guy like Biron?

Personally, I dont know...Id have to think long and hard about it, but I know I'd consider several deals that didnt bring a #1 goalie back.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 06:37 PM
  #122
Florida Ranger
Bring back Torts!
 
Florida Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa, FLA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRfan68 View Post
from my perspective, there would need to be a replacement in there.

so deals I'd consider would be:

Lundqvist, Anisimov for Rask, Seguin
Lundqvist, Staal for Malkin Fleury
Lundqvist for M.Smith and Steve Stamkos (i'd deal Gaborik right after too though, since we wont be good for 2-3 years)
Lundqvist, Grachev for Ovechkin
Lundqvist for Miller and Roy


thats only way its worth it.
Trust me, we wouldn't want Mike Smith. He's such a siv. If I was to trade Lundqvist to Tampa, I'd want Stamkos and a 1st round pick.

Florida Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 10:22 PM
  #123
Fataldogg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Not really true, although I still think the inclusion of Staal is overpayment on our part.
I don't think Gaborik is at Malkin's level either, that being said, I think the difference between Gaborik and Malkin doesn't justify the difference between Lundqvist and Fleury (which I think is a substantially larger gap) and the acquisition of Staal yet, from what I read, some Penguin fans didn't even think that was in the ball park to get Malkin.

I think it would be a terrible deal for the Rangers and a fantastic one for Penguins.

Imagine adding Staal, to an already solid defensive core, putting Henrik Lundqvist between the pipes for 70+ games, and having Crosby center for Gaborik That would be a Presidents Trophy team candidate every season. Crosby playing with Gaborik? Wow. Crosby would be putting up 120 - 140 points on a routine basis and Gaborik would be posting close to 60-goals on a routine basis. The best play maker in the NHL with one of the best pure snipers in the game today spells trouble. Crosby would be so much better if he didn't have to play with the likes of Dupuis or Geurin and Gaborik would be so much better if he didn't play with Christiensen or Prospal (despite meshing well with both).

Fataldogg 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 02:32 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.