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

Eklund says Flames want Dubi bad

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-24-2010, 07:14 AM
  #26
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,439
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagoon44 View Post
For what it is worth this was around a lot last yr also
Really nothing on Calgary's roster that interests me in the slightest in giving up Dubinsky. I guess I'd be more interested if we're dumping Redden on them. At least it's creative.

azrok22 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 07:26 AM
  #27
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
I'd move Dubinsky for Backlund and a nice pick, otherwise no cigar from me.
I like Backlund, but I don't know -- the jury is kind of out of him.

He really is a "clutch" player. He have a nice shot and everything; but he aint that darn talented. I think he have a nice shot at becoming a Swedish center Callahan-type, if that makes any sense -- but not much more then that...

Ola is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 07:32 AM
  #28
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,694
vCash: 500
Rangers and Flames just do not make good trading partners. Both do not have favorable salary cap situation. Rangers will not move Dubinsky for an aging Vet a la Iginla (Who the Flames will not be moving because the their offseason acquisitions were geared for him), and the Flames do not have the younger players that would make it worth the Rangers while to trade Dubinsky.

Only player that interests me is Backlund, but I doubt the Flames would want to move him.

UAGoalieGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 08:57 AM
  #29
Lion Hound
@JoeTucc26
 
Lion Hound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,701
vCash: 500
They dropped the ball with Calgary already. If Dubi was moved there, they should have swung the deal when Phaneuf was available.

I like Reghr<sp>...Like him alot. But hes aging, and this club IMO is just not close to a cup contender to make a move like that meaning at this stage a young top 6 forward like Dubi makes carries more value.

Lion Hound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:07 AM
  #30
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
I'd agree to such a dream scenario, too. Just remember one thing:

Regehr was a great defenseman, but he's lost a step and it's hurt his game. Still a good player that I would love on my team, but he shouldn't be your number one defenseman. Then again, neither should Staal, but he's better than Regehr at this point.

Otherwise, only Backlund interests me on that team for Dubinsky. Pass on Iginla. Too old, and past his prime.
Yeah, unfortunately for the Flames, they don't have a lot to offer anymore, and I wouldn't move Dubinsky for aging vets. Too much like the dark years...

Also, Staal is just fine as a teams #1 defenseman. It depends a little bit on your definition, though...he can play huge minutes against other teams best players, and that's what you WANT him to do...for a lot of teams, that's pretty much the definition of their #1. Of course he's no franchise player or a superstar who will put up 50+ points and shut down everyone, but there aren't enough of those guys in the league for everyone to have one to be their #1.

Staal is just fine.

However, Regher I do not want. Not at this point in his career; that'd be a bad move.

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:22 AM
  #31
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Yeah, unfortunately for the Flames, they don't have a lot to offer anymore, and I wouldn't move Dubinsky for aging vets. Too much like the dark years...

Also, Staal is just fine as a teams #1 defenseman. It depends a little bit on your definition, though...he can play huge minutes against other teams best players, and that's what you WANT him to do...for a lot of teams, that's pretty much the definition of their #1. Of course he's no franchise player or a superstar who will put up 50+ points and shut down everyone, but there aren't enough of those guys in the league for everyone to have one to be their #1.

Staal is just fine.

However, Regher I do not want. Not at this point in his career; that'd be a bad move.
Stay-at-home D is never #1, he is right. Staal is just fine, you're right as well.

I'd take Regher+salary for Redden+Dubi.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:25 AM
  #32
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,621
vCash: 500
again, I think it depends on how you define #1, as I believe the term is fluid and means different things to different people.

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:28 AM
  #33
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,146
vCash: 500
i continue to believe that torts isnt a huge dubi fan.

if im dubi, im not buying a house in ny anytime soon.

offdacrossbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:32 AM
  #34
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
again, I think it depends on how you define #1, as I believe the term is fluid and means different things to different people.
It's not me. It is how it has always been. On any given pairing 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 the odd number goes to puck moving D regardless of the side he/she is playing.
You using #1 for the best D on the team and then rank the rest accordingly. That is fine, but no one PLAYS them in that order. That is why it has little value for roster balancing. Sometimes you need to position D-man based on something other than skill level. For instance, left/right shot is very important, since, unlike Fs, Ds never play off wing.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:35 AM
  #35
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
i continue to believe that torts isnt a huge dubi fan.
Based on what? All the ice time Dubi gets? All the good things Torts has said about him in the past? All the times Dubi has been mentioned as part of the core?

If you can find one quote from Torts that would lead you to believe he doesn't like Dubi, I'd love to see it. And don't bother dredging up stuff from when Dubi held out. I'm sure Torts doesn't give a **** about that, even if some fans still do.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:37 AM
  #36
pwoz
Registered User
 
pwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,494
vCash: 500
No one on Calgary is worth trading Dubi. If it was Ryan, then yes.

pwoz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:38 AM
  #37
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
It's not me. It is how it has always been. On any given pairing 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 the odd number goes to puck moving D regardless of the side he/she is playing.
You using #1 for the best D on the team and then rank the rest accordingly. That is fine, but no one PLAYS them in that order. That is why it has little value for roster balancing. Sometimes you need to position D-man based on something other than skill level. For instance, left/right shot is very important, since, unlike Fs, Ds never play off wing.
So many holes to point to, so little time.

I'll just move on and say that Calgary doesn't offer much to spark my interest at this point.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:41 AM
  #38
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
It's not me. It is how it has always been. On any given pairing 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 the odd number goes to puck moving D regardless of the side he/she is playing.
You using #1 for the best D on the team and then rank the rest accordingly. That is fine, but no one PLAYS them in that order. That is why it has little value for roster balancing. Sometimes you need to position D-man based on something other than skill level. For instance, left/right shot is very important, since, unlike Fs, Ds never play off wing.
I don't think coaches assign numbers to defensemen and use that to help determine how play guys...I mean that just sounds silly and unnecessary. There's no reason at all to do something like that.

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:46 AM
  #39
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
And don't bother dredging up stuff from when Dubi held out. I'm sure Torts doesn't give a **** about that, even if some fans still do.
Holdout made Sather much less Dubi fan. That does matter.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:49 AM
  #40
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
I don't think coaches assign numbers to defensemen and use that to help determine how play guys...I mean that just sounds silly and unnecessary. There's no reason at all to do something like that.
Sure they do. When coach tell GM we need to upgrade #4 D it means we need a better stay-at-home guy on our second pair (not "we need a better 4th overall defenseman")

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:52 AM
  #41
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
I don't think coaches assign numbers to defensemen and use that to help determine how play guys...I mean that just sounds silly and unnecessary. There's no reason at all to do something like that.
I think it's a dated mentality that many of us struggle to let go of.

Same thing with first line forwards vs. second line forwards.

These days it's all about matching and putting together the right combinations.

I've long maintained that Brian Leetch, in some ways, spoiled an entire generation of Ranger fans. Leetch was more than a number one defenseman. He was an elite, Hall of Fame, defenseman. In the process, he became the standard by which all of our defenseman (unfairly) will be judged against.

Marc Staal leads this team in minutes, he's at the cusp of scoring 10 goals and 35 points and he routinely goes against the other teams top players. That's a number one defenseman. That's not Brian Leetch, but it's still very good.

I think it's far too easy for us to overlook a defenseman who goes out there and plays exactly how his position expects, defensive. We like points and we like big hits and so we'll always gravitate towards those players, even if they aren't as good at playing their position as Staal.

In a nutshell, the idea of assigning numbers to players and having them fit nice and tidy into a category only benefits us. It's part of our brains natural tendency to assign every bit of information a proper place and make sure it can keep track of and visualize all the moving parts. In the actual sport of professional hockey, it's seldom used these days. Most GMs and coaches talk about guys they would like to play together, not the hypothetical numbers that can be assigned to those players.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:52 AM
  #42
howztheglass
Registered User
 
howztheglass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Holdout made Sather much less Dubi fan. That does matter.
It took 39 post before someone brought up the same idea I had---Sather thinking they might have even more trouble signing him if he does reach that 60-70 point range.

howztheglass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:55 AM
  #43
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Sure they do. When coach tell GM we need to upgrade #4 D it means we need a better stay-at-home guy on our second pair (not "we need a better 4th overall defenseman")
I think you are far more likely to hit a coach talk about pairs than numbers.

This based on 13 years in professional sports, just saying is all.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 09:56 AM
  #44
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,906
vCash: 500
Meh. There really isnt anything of interest for me coming from Calgary unless they completely overpay which is silly to think IMO.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:00 AM
  #45
howztheglass
Registered User
 
howztheglass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Eat Crow View Post
If the Rangers flip Dubinsky for Regehr and then send Staal to Anaheim for Bobby Ryan, that's something I could live with...
Couldn't agree more---while giving up Dubi and Staal isn't easy it's not like a total lost in the replacement department.

Staal is better then Regehr
but
Ryan is better then Dubi

I still believe the Rangers would be adding more scoring this year as Ryan will out score Dubi and Regehr and Staal will be about even.As far as the future that's when the depth that we have on defense should take over.

Now do I see it happening No but not a bad flip-flop.

howztheglass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:01 AM
  #46
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I think it's a dated mentality that many of us struggle to let go of.

Same thing with first line forwards vs. second line forwards.

These days it's all about matching and putting together the right combinations.

I've long maintained that Brian Leetch, in some ways, spoiled an entire generation of Ranger fans. Leetch was more than a number one defenseman. He was an elite, Hall of Fame, defenseman. In the process, he became the standard by which all of our defenseman (unfairly) will be judged against.

Marc Staal leads this team in minutes, he's at the cusp of scoring 10 goals and 35 points and he routinely goes against the other teams top players. That's a number one defenseman. That's not Brian Leetch, but it's still very good.

I think it's far too easy for us to overlook a defenseman who goes out there and plays exactly how his position expects, defensive. We like points and we like big hits and so we'll always gravitate towards those players, even if they aren't as good at playing their position as Staal.

In a nutshell, the idea of assigning numbers to players and having them fit nice and tidy into a category only benefits us. It's part of our brains natural tendency to assign every bit of information a proper place and make sure it can keep track of and visualize all the moving parts. In the actual sport of professional hockey, it's seldom used these days. Most GMs and coaches talk about guys they would like to play together, not the hypothetical numbers that can be assigned to those players.
Great, great, great post Edge.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:03 AM
  #47
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stugots View Post
Every time I hear a rumor about Dubi being traded I go by this benchmark: if Sather didn't include him in a trade for Heatley, who is a top 5-10 player in this league, why would he include him in a trade for what will be obviously a much lesser player? Doesn't make sense to me.
I'll preface this by saying that I don't believe this rumor and feel that Dubi will NOT be traded but...

Just because Sather didn't trade him for Heatley a year ago doesn't mean he won't trade him now for someone else. If Sather/Torts feel that he's not progressing the way they want... his attitude is not where they want it... etc. he'll get moved. Besides the fact that the Heatley deal wasn't for Dubi straight up.

Riche16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:04 AM
  #48
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by howztheglass View Post
It took 39 post before someone brought up the same idea I had---Sather thinking they might have even more trouble signing him if he does reach that 60-70 point range.
I don't really see it.

Sather is a tough negotiator, but he's not the type who trades a guy based on those negotiations. Unless he has to.

If Sather believes Dubinsky can be a 6'1, 210 pound power forward who nets 25-30 goals and 60-65 points, he's going to try and keep him.

Sather has done a lot of stupid things, but the one thing he hasn't done in a while is trade valuable youth for no good reason.

If Dubinsky goes, it will be a result of this team (right or wrong) feeling they are getting a player they really need. I would be shocked if it has anything to do with past negotiations.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:08 AM
  #49
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I think you are far more likely to hit a coach talk about pairs than numbers.

This based on 13 years in professional sports, just saying is all.
They talked pairs to outsiders who usually do not get the number concept.
You cannot play your two best Ds on first pair. I mean, sometimes you may end up doing that, but ideally you want to play your best puck moving D and your best stay-at-home D there. They must shoot differently in addition.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:21 AM
  #50
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
They talked pairs to outsiders who usually do not get the number concept.
You cannot play your two best Ds on first pair. I mean, sometimes you may end up doing that, but ideally you want to play your best puck moving D and your best stay-at-home D there. They must shoot differently in addition.
If anything, I think you have it reversed.

They use small numbers with outsiders who don't necessarily understand the entire thought process of why two guys are paired together.

I'm also confused by your argument saying that you can't play your two best defenseman together. Under that approach your flip-flopping at least two guys (say your #2 and #3) and thus throwing off the whole number system because you'd now have the following pairs:

1-3
2-4
5-6

Which goes right back to what I'm saying, regardless of the numbers you assign guys to keep track of them, you're still looking for the best combinations.

Either way, it's hard for me to argue with you because it just isn't don't these days in the NHL, and really, has not been used for a while.

The successful teams find combinations that work.

Edge 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 03:42 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.