Did he actually say that the Rangers "missed out" on a guy that didn't even get claimed on re-entry waivers? (Valabik)
Really like Gleason, but where does he fit? We're certainly not going to play him ahead of Staal, so does he bump MDZ to the 3rd pairing? Depends on whether or not the org feels like that's the better place for him now, I guess.
Did he actually say that the Rangers "missed out" on a guy that didn't even get claimed on re-entry waivers? (Valabik)
Really like Gleason, but where does he fit? We're certainly not going to play him ahead of Staal, so does he bump MDZ to the 3rd pairing? Depends on whether or not the org feels like that's the better place for him now, I guess.
We missed out on Valabik? Is that supposed to be a joke?
Anything that sends worthless Gilroy away will make me happy. Can we get rid of Eminger, also?
I don't hate Todd White..I think he's a lot better than people here give him credit for. If he got ice time, I GUARANTEE he'd put up better numbers than EC.
if we give up something of value then it better not be a rental. if we give up the talent needed to get a pitkanen or gleason then it better be with the intention of keeping those guys long term
Good point. But I wouldn't think anything significant from our team would be traded.
Which is a MUCH, MUCH better D then we are fielding right now. If we could somehow lose Eminger in the trade and have Sauer on the left side, it would mean 4 solid top 4 dmen, and only 1 defensive liability on D.
Agreed Though MDZ with Sauer might make for a good pairing - undoubtedly Torts would keep Eminger there though.
This all comes down to how much is it gonna cost us?
Also, another issue. Getting Gleason would probably significantly improve our playoff chances, but would also block Vtank for another year. I think I'm ok with that given how much of an upgrade Gleason is, but some on this board probably won't like that.
If hes a rental on the third pairing fine - but i'd rather not have him on one of the top pairs getting big minutes.
My worry with Pitkänen would not be that he's lazy, rather it's that he makes a bonehead decision every so often that just has you scratching your head. He's such a fluid skater, he makes things look easy.
Either way, there's no way the Rangers trade for him to put him on the 3rd pairing. He'd be in the top 4 and the first powerplay unit immediately.
Same thing with Gleason -- I don't see him being traded for to play bottom-pairing minutes. I don't know him well as a player, but I don't really see how he fits with how the Rangers play. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's basically an upgrade on Sauer.
Zipay isn't the only one to mention Pitkanen and Gleason.
Brooks in his chat yesterday also put out those 2 names.
I'd look out for guys like Grachev, Gilroy, Sauer all being trade bait. Hell, maybe even Aasen.
None of those four are untouchable:
I'd rather not lose either, but Grachev and Zuccharello-Aasen may never have as high trade value again (or they may burn us!).
Gilroy we all know and Sauer -- I don't think he's going to be a Ranger for long. Good player, but he's just not the kind of D-man Torts likes to use, for better or worse.
Last edited by 007: 11-04-2010 at 10:12 AM.
Reason: I can't count...
That package aint worth much, I heard White at the fourth period, which isnt hugely reliable but it wouldnt surprise me if his contract was moves in a deal.
Getting Gleason would be big for this team. Would give us 4 solid defensive defensemen. No more Eminger or Del Zotto on the penalty kill.
On the downside, with Eminger being our "5th" it would force Sauer out of the lineup again.
Not necessarily. He's our "5th" right now. That certainly doesn't mean he's going to be our 5th all year, whether we make a deal or not. I get what you're saying that if we acquire one of the aforementioned names, Eminger is likely pushed to #6 and Sauer out of the lineup, but it's not written in stone. If Eminger falls off and Sauer continues to improve, I don't think Torts would think twice about making Eminger the regular healthy scratch #7.
Forgot to add to my post, but I feel as if it would cost a heft amount to add Gleason. It's not like the Canes are the Canes of last year, they have a legit shot at making the playoffs this season, so why get rid of one of their top Dmen?
I think the cost would outweigh the gains, and the Rangers should really look elsewhere for their left handed dmen woes. But then again, the way this season is going, Tortorella doesn't seem to concerned about it.
I think Valabik should've been picked up, but I also think that Strudwick would be perfect on this team.
He'd come cheap, he'd be a great veteran presence paired with someone like Sauer, the guidance that guy could give him. Another dude to drop the gloves/protect Hank.
Plus the biggest prize of all, 1 year deal. Perfect stop gap until next season opens when Vtank and McDonagh are ready to officially compete for an NHL D spot.
I'd rather not lose either, but Grachev and Zuccharello-Aasen may never have as high trade value again (or they may burn us!).
Gilroy we all know and Sauer -- I don't think he's going to be a Ranger for long. Good player, but he's just not the kind of D-man Torts likes to use, for better or worse.
Agreed here - if that's what it took to get him I say go for it cause none of those guys are untouchable or really lighting the world on fire. I guess we should be more patient, but Gleanson wouldn't be a rental.
And I'd be playing Sauer almost every night but for whatever reason Torts doesn't like him. So that leads me to think he won't be here (as you said)
The issue I have with Pitkanen is not necessarily his play on the ice, it's the fact that he has a tough time staying on the ice. The guy certainly isn't very sturdy.
He's also pretty pricey. We'd have to move some considerable salary to Carolina.
Partner for MDZ 1. MDZ is a awesome asset for this team. And will be for a long time.
Who do you want to pair MDZ with now, next year and 3-4 years from now?
In this perspective I don't think you count om McD or McI, at least not yet. McI is a LD himself, right? McD? We have seen before how 3-4 awesome goalieprospects becomes 1. How 3-4 young offensive D prospects becomes 1. Don't get me wrong, but wouldn't put my egg in that basket yet.
Is that guy Girardi? In the games I've seen, I haven't had a problem at all with Girardi's play, but I have not been sold by his ability to cover for MDZ either. Girardi have a tendacy to get caught very inbetween at times.
I think thats the biggest hole we have. The lack of partner for MDZ.
Longterm, I think this should be our prio 1. on the blueline. Plan to invest Rozi's money in MDZ's higher salary in the future -- and in a partner for MDZ. Then evalute Girardi as Staal's partner, or as the 5th D. If he can't make it in the first mentioned role, or is too expensive for the later role, you use him as a valuble chip.
LD 2. Just get a serviceble got darn 6th D to play on LD on the 3rd pairing already. That position isn't important. These guys don't play much, and of the minutes they play, for a big part of it they are asked to just clear the zone and whatnot.
Agreed here - if that's what it took to get him I say go for it cause none of those guys are untouchable or really lighting the world on fire. I guess we should be more patient, but Gleanson wouldn't be a rental.
And I'd be playing Sauer almost every night but for whatever reason Torts doesn't like him. So that leads me to think he won't be here (as you said)
The issue with Sauer is the same as the one I foresee with Gleason, as far as the Rangers are concerned: neither one shoots the puck. Torts likes all his defencemen to be able to get involved in the play moving forward.
Originally Posted by NYRangers16
Agreed here - if that's what it took to get him I say go for it cause none of those guys are untouchable or really lighting the world on fire. I guess we should be more patient, but Gleanson wouldn't be a rental.
And I'd be playing Sauer almost every night but for whatever reason Torts doesn't like him. So that leads me to think he won't be here (as you said)
The issue with Sauer is the same as the one I foresee with Gleason, as far as the Rangers are concerned: neither one shoots the puck. Torts likes all his defencemen to be able to get involved in the play moving forward.
This is why im not fully behind torts as a coach, I love his passion and what he has done with this team so far but honestly a defensmans #1 job to do first and foremost.. is to be able to play DEFENSE!! Neither Eminger or Gilroy know how to do this and thats why i dont understand why Sauer isnt in there. The kid plays very solid defense and although doesnt shoot often can actually hit the net. When was the last time anyone saw gilroy hit the net on a shot? What about eminger making a play on the offensive or defensive side of the puck?
Sauer needs to be getting consistant playing time and hopefully we can trade gilroy, eminger, whatever to get gleason
As a Stars fan and Rangers fan, I think Daley-Gilory straight up could be a good trade. It probably wouldn't get done though, for some reason Niewy thinks Daley is a great locker room leader.
Though MDZ with Sauer might make for a good pairing - undoubtedly Torts would keep Eminger there though. 
