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

So, with the 4th best points total in the league, what should the Rangers do?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-17-2010, 10:41 AM
  #76
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 7,355
vCash: 500
We should move Rozy at the deadline to assist with the cap, which has to accommodate Redden's $6.5 during the summer. If McDonagh is ready, move Rozy for a pick, perhaps pick up another vet as insurance. I am not in favor of any big moves either. We should have Kreider, Werek and Hagelin coming up in the next couple years, and we have a few prospects in Hartford.

ThisYearsModel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 10:41 AM
  #77
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,579
vCash: 500
Don't do much of anything until the trade deadline and ***** the team needs then

If there's an opportunity to make the team better at that point, then explore it, but don't overpay.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 10:47 AM
  #78
McMonster
Registered User
 
McMonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,359
vCash: 500
keep with the plan and don't trade away the kids.

McMonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 10:49 AM
  #79
KingWantsCup
Grinch who stole...
 
KingWantsCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,761
vCash: 350
I was very pro Richards, but now I'm not so sure. There's really only a handful of starting players I wouldn't mind see going in a trade now. Those players being Fedotenko, White, Frolov, Christensen, Rozsival, and maybe Boogaard. Their value ranges from "meh" to relatively useful. Anyone else think our core is growing fast? Boyle certainly joined it this year and Sauer is so cheap, efficient, and promising it would be pretty difficult to let him go. And we can't forget Stepan who's clearly offensively inclined. Anisimov is arguably part of the core as well.

However Anisimov has long been considered the player part of the puzzle that would get Richards here, but that's really a tough call. In all likelihood, without a top center I don't think we are likely to go past the second or third round, but I'd be feeling more confident about our overall cup chances than any Rangers team I've watched before.

This team is winning like winners. What do I mean by that? Basically not being the Jets and just beating up on bad teams. We are beating good teams. IF we are truly as good as we are showing, there's no reason we can't, if we retain all our key players, put an equally or better team on the ice next year. This means that we could actually afford to wait for Richards as a free agent and not sacrifice core players.


Last edited by KingWantsCup: 12-17-2010 at 11:03 AM.
KingWantsCup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 11:27 AM
  #80
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
The team's success only makes it more imperative that they find a way to get Richards. Now (meaning this deadline or the summer) is the time. Add the missing piece of the puzzle, or at least the biggest missing piece. With Richards, this team becomes very dangerous, and Gaborik becomes a bigger factor.
I'm not trying to pick on ya Sting, but basically everything your saying is what I disagree with.

Just working off the top of my head but, let's say they acquire Richards (trade or F/A). OK, but what did they have to give up to get him? They now have a lot less cap space with which to resign young core guys and/or they have given up same to acquire "the missing piece".

The history of making these kinds of moves is not good imo. Most of the time things fall far short of expectations. Production is not what we thought it would be. Chemistry is lacking and so on... Then we have to make a move...to correct a move.

Deals and more deals. Get this guy!! No wait!! He's not the guy. Get rid of that guy!! Get that guy!! Sounds like more fun to me.

Let's try something different this time. Let's just let these guys play. It's plain to see that some good things are happening here. I'd like to see how it pans out this way. We've done it the other way already.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:00 PM
  #81
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
I'm not trying to pick on ya Sting, but basically everything your saying is what I disagree with.

Just working off the top of my head but, let's say they acquire Richards (trade or F/A). OK, but what did they have to give up to get him? They now have a lot less cap space with which to resign young core guys and/or they have given up same to acquire "the missing piece".

The history of making these kinds of moves is not good imo. Most of the time things fall far short of expectations. Production is not what we thought it would be. Chemistry is lacking and so on... Then we have to make a move...to correct a move.

Deals and more deals. Get this guy!! No wait!! He's not the guy. Get rid of that guy!! Get that guy!! Sounds like more fun to me.

Let's try something different this time. Let's just let these guys play. It's plain to see that some good things are happening here. I'd like to see how it pans out this way. We've done it the other way already.
To be fair he did add (Trade or this summer). We obviously disagree with him on the trade part (Although it always depends on the trade) but most now agree it'd be a good move to get BR in the summer and just add him to a recipe that is obviously cooking deliciously

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:07 PM
  #82
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,397
vCash: 500
Stay the course. In fact, dump Prospal, Frolov and Rosie for a second round pick each, and bring up MZA.

With 5 second rounders this year, we'll be in great shape going forward with all the youth we already have and all the more youth we will draft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthJerseyRanger View Post
It's becoming pretty apparent that the Blueshirts have a pretty good team this year. They work hard, are never out of a game, score goals at a 3+ goals per game pace, and have maybe the best goaltending tandem in the league. So what do you do if YOU were GM?

Do you ship out some young parts for a guy like Richards, who might be able to put you over the top?

Do you stay with the plan and let this current team play it out... with the knowledge that you are not an elite team talent-wise?

My opinion: I love the makeup and work ethic of this team; still, I would highlight a package deal for a true top line center with a guy like Anisimov. I love the kid, but it looks like there is no team in the West that really intimidates you, and the two most threatening teams in the conference are in your own division. That means it's very likely that in the playoffs you would only have to beat ONE of them in a 7 games series... something that is incredibly feasible.

So Ranger fans, what do you think?

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:09 PM
  #83
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
I'm not trying to pick on ya Sting, but basically everything your saying is what I disagree with.
Quote:
Just working off the top of my head but, let's say they acquire Richards (trade or F/A). OK, but what did they have to give up to get him? They now have a lot less cap space with which to resign young core guys and/or they have given up same to acquire "the missing piece".
You're making a couple of major assumptions here:

a) that the price for Richards will be as high as you think.
b) his contract extension will cause some kind of problem with re-signing our young players.

I don't think either statement is correct.

Quote:
The history of making these kinds of moves is not good imo. Most of the time things fall far short of expectations. Production is not what we thought it would be. Chemistry is lacking and so on... Then we have to make a move...to correct a move.
There is no history of making "these kinds" of moves, because we've never made a move like this before. On the contrary, the moves that you're comparing this potential move to all met their expectations perfectly. We signed overrated players to terrible contracts and then watched them play exactly the way they'd always played.

Quote:
Deals and more deals. Get this guy!! No wait!! He's not the guy. Get rid of that guy!! Get that guy!! Sounds like more fun to me.
The only major free agent I've wanted this team to pursue in the last half-decade (if not longer) is Kovalchuk, and now Richards. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that most of the people here who are against getting Richards are the same people that were for getting Drury/Gomez/Redden. I was vehemently against getting all three. It's startling how few people seem capable of discerning the difference.

Quote:
Let's try something different this time. Let's just let these guys play. It's plain to see that some good things are happening here. I'd like to see how it pans out this way. We've done it the other way already.
Again, you're comparing the potential acquisition of Brad Richards to other roster moves in the past when there is no basis for comparison. This is a player that fits our needs and brings exactly what this team sorely lacks. Those players never fit our needs. Brad Richards' statistics are not inflated by other players or systems. He's the guy that inflates other people's numbers. Brad Richards is not a role player. He's not an average second line center. He hasn't been in obvious decline for the last two years.

Those previous acquisitions didn't make any sense logically. Getting Richards would make perfect sense, especially on the ice. I don't remember the last time the Rangers made a major acquisition that actually made as much sense as getting Richards would. It's probably been over a decade.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:10 PM
  #84
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
Don't move Ani.

When he's on his game, he looks Datsyukian at times.

If you trade AA for Brad, the team still does not win the Cup in the next few years, and when in 5 years all the guys like MDZ, Step, Thomas, Kreider, etc mature, we will really miss Anisimov.

Go for the Cup, not for another round of playoffs.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:14 PM
  #85
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike14 View Post
Keep winning

I say save the moves for the offseason, where I think Rozy will be moved.
Let this group keep growing together and take it from there

We can get more for Rosie this trading deadline than in the summer.

1. A team would be getting him for two rounds of playoffs, not one, for essentially the same $3m in salary.

2. At the trading deadline, the acquiring team will know that it is getting someone for a good team that has proven itself over the regular season. In the summer, who knows how your team will do next year?

Slats can get a second for Rosie in February, but only a third or a fourth in July.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:14 PM
  #86
Blatant
Formerly NYRFan1823
 
Blatant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: @blatantlacrosse
Posts: 2,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
We should move Rozy at the deadline to assist with the cap, which has to accommodate Redden's $6.5 during the summer. If McDonagh is ready, move Rozy for a pick, perhaps pick up another vet as insurance. I am not in favor of any big moves either. We should have Kreider, Werek and Hagelin coming up in the next couple years, and we have a few prospects in Hartford.
Why would we move rozy when we are winning, to clear up cap space? Thats a move you try to make if you arent gonna try to win. Rozy is worth more than a pick as well.

Blatant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:15 PM
  #87
Blueshirt Special
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,263
vCash: 500
I would not move Rosival before the playoffs!! crazy

Not that we will win the Cup, don't get crazy on me. But we need that veteran presence.

Blueshirt Special is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:18 PM
  #88
Blatant
Formerly NYRFan1823
 
Blatant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: @blatantlacrosse
Posts: 2,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Special View Post
I would not move Rosival before the playoffs!! crazy

Not that we will win the Cup, don't get crazy on me. But we need that veteran presence.
Completely agree, I don't like all the blind Rozsival hate. If you told everyone in the league that you would be willing to give up Rozy, for a single 2nd round pick. Almost every team would jump on it. The hate for him is ridiculous. If you didnt watch last nights game, he made a great play keeping the bouncing puck in the zone, and getting a nice low shot on net, that led to the Game tying goal late in the third.

Blatant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:44 PM
  #89
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You're making a couple of major assumptions here:

a) that the price for Richards will be as high as you think.
b) his contract extension will cause some kind of problem with re-signing our young players.

I don't think either statement is correct.



There is no history of making "these kinds" of moves, because we've never made a move like this before. On the contrary, the moves that you're comparing this potential move to all met their expectations perfectly. We signed overrated players to terrible contracts and then watched them play exactly the way they'd always played.



The only major free agent I've wanted this team to pursue in the last half-decade (if not longer) is Kovalchuk, and now Richards. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that most of the people here who are against getting Richards are the same people that were for getting Drury/Gomez/Redden. I was vehemently against getting all three. It's startling how few people seem capable of discerning the difference.



Again, you're comparing the potential acquisition of Brad Richards to other roster moves in the past when there is no basis for comparison. This is a player that fits our needs and brings exactly what this team sorely lacks. Those players never fit our needs. Brad Richards' statistics are not inflated by other players or systems. He's the guy that inflates other people's numbers. Brad Richards is not a role player. He's not an average second line center. He hasn't been in obvious decline for the last two years.

Those previous acquisitions didn't make any sense logically. Getting Richards would make perfect sense, especially on the ice. I don't remember the last time the Rangers made a major acquisition that actually made as much sense as getting Richards would. It's probably been over a decade.
Again, I'm not picking on you specifically Sting. It's the whole mind set of "Getting THE guy". It's fair and quite practical to assume that the price for acquiring Richards will be high...because it will be high.

If we trade for him it will cost in youth. Prospects, picks, or roster maybe all three. What do you think? Who would we likely have to give up in a trade?

To sign him it will also cost. Which means we now have much less to resign or extend the contracts of kids we want to keep. How much does Gabby cost? I'm no expert in this area, but I'll assume it's in that neighborhood.

The biggest assumption imo, is that he is "the answer". Again, who knows? But once we get him you know darn well what the attitude in the Rangersphere will be: "He better be the answer....look who we gave up, what we're paying", blah, blah, blah.

We see chemistry and a team forming itself right in front of our eyes. Warts and all these guys are making progress....then we trade someone or can't pay someone because "the answer" is here. What does that do to the room?

I'll ask you this: If we were to assume that Richards is a magic bullet, how do we know we don't already have that bullet in the chamber?

Getting a guy like Richards and/or giving up youth or cash is EXACTLY the old way of doing business in Rangerland imo.

Stay the course.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:56 PM
  #90
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
Again, I'm not picking on you specifically Sting. It's the whole mind set of "Getting THE guy". It's fair and quite practical to assume that the price for acquiring Richards will be high...because it will be high.
Based on what, exactly? Who is going to pay this high price?

Quote:
If we trade for him it will cost in youth. Prospects, picks, or roster maybe all three. What do you think? Who would we likely have to give up in a trade?
Already said it many times. McDonagh, Rozsival, 1st, and Grachev. That's the same kind of deal Atlanta got for Kovalchuk. And like I said before, if they are confident that they can get him in free agency, then wait. That's a price I'd have no problem paying, however.

Quote:
To sign him it will also cost. Which means we now have much less to resign or extend the contracts of kids we want to keep. How much does Gabby cost? I'm no expert in this area, but I'll assume it's in that neighborhood.
I'm not going to post the whole breakdown again, but in other threads I've shown how it's more than feasible to re-sign all of our young players and sign Richards, if you accept the fact that he's not going to get as much money as some people think he is. It'll be tight for one season, and then Drury's cap hit is off the books and there should be absolutely no problem.

Quote:
The biggest assumption imo, is that he is "the answer". Again, who knows? But once we get him you know darn well what the attitude in the Rangersphere will be: "He better be the answer....look who we gave up, what we're paying", blah, blah, blah.
I'm not really sure what the fact that much of this fanbase is full of impatient loudmouths has to do with it, but looking at the strengths and weaknesses of this hockey team, Richards definitely seems like the answer, since he gives this team exactly what it sorely lacks. That's a lot different than what one could have said about Gomez or Drury.

Quote:
We see chemistry and a team forming itself right in front of our eyes. Warts and all these guys are making progress....then we trade someone or can't pay someone because "the answer" is here. What does that do to the room?
Probably tells the team that management believes enough in them to make the kind of move teams make when they're ready to jump to the next level...which this team is, or is very close to. Tells the team that management is making an investment in them.

Quote:
I'll ask you this: If we were to assume that Richards is a magic bullet, how do we know we don't already have that bullet in the chamber?
I guess that depends on whether or not you think this team has someone capable of being one of the best playmaking centers in the league and one of the best PP QBs in the league. I don't think we do, for the same reasons that I don't think getting Brad Richards is anything like getting Scott Gomez or Chris Drury.

Quote:
Getting a guy like Richards and/or giving up youth or cash is EXACTLY the old way of doing business in Rangerland imo.
Only to someone who can't see the sizable difference between Brad Richards, an elite player in his prime, and a bunch of overrated and over hyped role players, or declining has-beens. Every single major free agent signing of the Glen Sather era except for Gaborik can be placed into one of those two categories. You can't place Brad Richards into either. I'll put it to you this way. Here is a list of acquisitions I was against making prior to them being made: Holik, Lindros, Kasparaitis, Fleury, Kamensky, Quintal, Jagr, Messier (the 2nd time), Gomez, Drury, Redden, Kotalik...this is just off the top of my head. Every one of these signings/trades I was against. This should tell you how I feel about pursuing "big name" players, and how differently I view Richards from any of those situations.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 01:57 PM
  #91
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You're making a couple of major assumptions here:

a) that the price for Richards will be as high as you think.
b) his contract extension will cause some kind of problem with re-signing our young players.

I don't think either statement is correct.



There is no history of making "these kinds" of moves, because we've never made a move like this before. On the contrary, the moves that you're comparing this potential move to all met their expectations perfectly. We signed overrated players to terrible contracts and then watched them play exactly the way they'd always played.



The only major free agent I've wanted this team to pursue in the last half-decade (if not longer) is Kovalchuk, and now Richards. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that most of the people here who are against getting Richards are the same people that were for getting Drury/Gomez/Redden. I was vehemently against getting all three. It's startling how few people seem capable of discerning the difference.



Again, you're comparing the potential acquisition of Brad Richards to other roster moves in the past when there is no basis for comparison. This is a player that fits our needs and brings exactly what this team sorely lacks. Those players never fit our needs. Brad Richards' statistics are not inflated by other players or systems. He's the guy that inflates other people's numbers. Brad Richards is not a role player. He's not an average second line center. He hasn't been in obvious decline for the last two years.

Those previous acquisitions didn't make any sense logically. Getting Richards would make perfect sense, especially on the ice. I don't remember the last time the Rangers made a major acquisition that actually made as much sense as getting Richards would. It's probably been over a decade
.
totally agree, particularly with the bold parts. people compare gomez and drury to richards...its ridiculous.

but, again though, im hesitant to give up core members....rozsival, a first, bourque maybe McDonagh or something like that....i could do.but probably not any of the pack line, or staal or girardi or kreider or stepan or ....you get the idea.

would that be enough to get him? probably not...but again, i said id look to get him if the price was right. if it isn't im more than content to stand pat.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 03:05 PM
  #92
ohbaby
Registered User
 
ohbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 955
vCash: 500
The thing with Richards is the price will be high. How could it not be. He's gonna come off 2 straight career years, and you saw what Kovalchuk got. We couldn't afford half of that, I would guess.

Aren't all the FA's getting ridiculously inflated contracts? Why would Richards be any different? I see no problem in lookin into it, but....

ohbaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 03:10 PM
  #93
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,424
vCash: 500
I only want Richards via UFA. Giving up assets for him seems foolish. Those assets could yield us other returns like a top d-partner for Staal. I'd prefer if the Rangers could build their team to be dominant over the next decade than mortgage the decade for a 'chance' to contend this spring. If he doesn't sign with us, then and only then should consider other options such as trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKers View Post
Kreider Richards Gaborik
Dubinsky Anisimov Zuccarello/Grachev
Drury Stepan Callahan
Avery Boyle Prust
Boogey, Christ/Feds

Staal Burns
??? Girardi
Del Zotto Sauer

McD/Eminger

Lundqvist
Biron
are you dreaming? Minnesota is not trading Burns just like we are not trading Staal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Blooded View Post
Assuming Kreider and MZA are ready for top 6 duties next year and our young defence continues to perform I really like the look of the team.

Code:
Kreider     Stepan    Gaborik
Dubinsky Anisimov  Zuccarello
Boyle        Drury     Callahan
Avery    Christensen  Prust

      Staal        Girardi
    Del Zotto    Rozsival
     Eminger      Sauer

            Lundqvist
               Biron
Switch Boyle or Drury with Christensen or Avery if you want a softer pair of hands on the third line.
that's a pretty big assumption I am not willing to make. People assumed MZA was top 6 ready this past summer. Although Callahan on the 2nd seems appropriate. Although a line of Boyle w/ Drury and MZA kind of reminds me of Eric Lindros flanked by the puny Fleury and York. Not that that line wasn't good. Kreider? If he's NHL ready, that would be quite an achievement. Top 6? That seems like a stretch. Especially with Torts track record, I can see him getting more than 12 minutes ATOI his first season.

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 03:33 PM
  #94
Blue Blooded
Registered User
 
Blue Blooded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
that's a pretty big assumption I am not willing to make. People assumed MZA was top 6 ready this past summer. Although Callahan on the 2nd seems appropriate. Although a line of Boyle w/ Drury and MZA kind of reminds me of Eric Lindros flanked by the puny Fleury and York. Not that that line wasn't good. Kreider? If he's NHL ready, that would be quite an achievement. Top 6? That seems like a stretch. Especially with Torts track record, I can see him getting more than 12 minutes ATOI his first season.
Well perhaps not, I do think Zuccarello could be relied on for top 6 duty next year. Kreider is more doubtful. While I love Callahan, and his play has been great this year, I still prefer him on the third line.

What it does show, is that the need for a top 6 LW might be bigger than the need for a 1C if Stepan and Anisimov continue to progress.


Last edited by Blue Blooded: 12-17-2010 at 03:39 PM.
Blue Blooded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 03:50 PM
  #95
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,048
vCash: 500
I like reading a lot of the stupid comments by NHL fans under the power rankings, especially the canadian sites. Everyone, and i mean everyone hates the Rangers. Theres this underlying disdain for the Rangers all over the place. And its not because they are winners like the Penguins. Lets continue to quietly ascend and it will take the majority of the league and its fans by surprise.

I actually have a pretty good amount of confidence in this team, because Lundqvist hasnt even hit his stride yet. Everyones out to squash the Rangers, despite looking at their impressive numbers all around thus far. I know a lot of fans think about that in regards to their own team, but its really the case with the Rangers. They were the laughing stock for years in the league (for good reason) but are kind of at the point now were people just refuse to give them any respect because the reputation of Sather and how the recent history (10 years) precedes itself, and a lot of the young Rangers are generally unknown for the most part around the league. I'm not saying its wrong to generalize, but its a good thing right now for this team.

Stick with the same core for a while and build in the necessary pieces as you go, theres no rush IMO. If a deal is there to be made without sacrificing a big portion of the future, go ahead and take it. But holding on to your assets and making smart (yeah, i said it) moves and non-moves lately has gotten this team to where it is now.

Theres a tendency in sports to overplay your hand a lot. It works a lot of different ways. Perfect example are the Knicks right now. All this hub-bub now with the winning streak but they started off like crap. Its nice they are doing well, but this a long long road to get were they want to be. Fans see this winning streak and they suddenly go "f-that" to breaking up whats going good now - not parting with some of the new guys to bring in a star like Anthony. Well, you take that deal and run while the stock is high. Thats what the plan was from the start. Its the opposite with the Rangers IMO. They are slowly bringing along and developing these drafted players before your eyes and its a long process but one that requires you to be patient.


Last edited by HockeyBasedNYC: 12-17-2010 at 04:02 PM.
HockeyBasedNYC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 04:34 PM
  #96
Lion Hound
@JoeTucc26
 
Lion Hound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,713
vCash: 500
At this point, if a trade was to be made there is one thing that Glen has in his pocket that he didn't in the past. The Ball is in his court! In the past he mades deals when his back was against the wall. The team needed a spark, had to make a move was in a slump etc. Now his club is flying high. With that said, value of his players are for the most part at max potential. So, if a trade was to be made the ball is in Glen's court which should mean a lopsided return.


I was pretty high on Richards at points. Pretty high on him for the same reason as everyone else. Bonafide top line center. But...he's my concerns about him and they are not related to his plus/minus.

1) Not everyone can play in NY with the same results they experienced elsewhere. Just becuase Richards has experienced good success elsewhere doesn't mean he is going to light the lamp here.

2) There is no guarantee that Richards can play with Gaborik. Yeah it's great to have the left handed player down the middle feeding him, but there is just no guarantee this duo will dominate.

3) We are all seeing the resutls of a club that is develping chemistry through time. Who's to say that by this time next season Derek Stepan is the bonafide number 1 the team covets? Over time these players here are sort of finding thier roles, as opposed to a GM finding a player for a role from another club.


So I guess my point is this. If there is a trade to be made, Sather can be super-stingy here. Like maybe both 2nd rounders, Grachev, White, Gilroy. If that doesn't land him, then too bad.

Lion Hound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2010, 01:52 AM
  #97
ohbaby
Registered User
 
ohbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 955
vCash: 500
I made points against getting Richards in another thread. One point was his plus minus lifetime. But plus minus is far from a definitive stat. Of more importance is his low shot pct. I could never figure out why this guy could not score more. He has one of the hardest slapshots in the league. Every year he's among the league leaders in shots on goal. Yet he has never scored more than 26 goals. If he takes his usual 250 to 280 shots, how many does Gabby get playing along side? To me, something doesn't add up with him coming here. Yeah, he's a great assist man, but most playmakers don't take that amount of shots. You look at anyone who shoots the puck that many times, you'll notice they are not playmakers, unless your Sid or Geno.

So if he were to come here to set up Gabby, taking less shots, he would have less goals. Would we be happy overpaying for a guy who scores 15 goals? Or,... him getting his 25 and Gabby getting less shots? So getting Richards for Gabby's sake, doesn't add up. Richards on another line might work, like when he was in TB. He rarely played on the same line with Vinnie n St Louis. They were on one line and Richards was on another.

So all this talk about him and Gabby making beautiful music together, doesn't make sense to me.

ohbaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2010, 02:12 AM
  #98
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You're making a couple of major assumptions here:

a) that the price for Richards will be as high as you think.
b) his contract extension will cause some kind of problem with re-signing our young players.

I don't think either statement is correct.



There is no history of making "these kinds" of moves, because we've never made a move like this before. On the contrary, the moves that you're comparing this potential move to all met their expectations perfectly. We signed overrated players to terrible contracts and then watched them play exactly the way they'd always played.



The only major free agent I've wanted this team to pursue in the last half-decade (if not longer) is Kovalchuk, and now Richards. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that most of the people here who are against getting Richards are the same people that were for getting Drury/Gomez/Redden. I was vehemently against getting all three. It's startling how few people seem capable of discerning the difference.



Again, you're comparing the potential acquisition of Brad Richards to other roster moves in the past when there is no basis for comparison. This is a player that fits our needs and brings exactly what this team sorely lacks. Those players never fit our needs. Brad Richards' statistics are not inflated by other players or systems. He's the guy that inflates other people's numbers. Brad Richards is not a role player. He's not an average second line center. He hasn't been in obvious decline for the last two years.

Those previous acquisitions didn't make any sense logically. Getting Richards would make perfect sense, especially on the ice. I don't remember the last time the Rangers made a major acquisition that actually made as much sense as getting Richards would. It's probably been over a decade.
Sting, I think you are being overly optimistic on what it will take to get Richards, sign him and retain core players.

He's 31 in May. If he were a bit younger I'd be much more inclined. As it is, I would hate to give up youth or picks to get him. But that being said, if the deal you laid out happened....well just knock me over with a feather. I don't think Dallas takes that deal in a million years. Substitute a core player or a key prospect for Rozy...which I would hate.

In any event, I am not a fan of big deals and the Rangers. They tend not to work out well. Take Gomez and Drury and put them aside. My history goes back pretty far. Also, don't under estimate the pressure our beloved, loud mouth fans can create. Not every one is cut out to perform well in New York.

But what the hell do I know. You made some good points too. It's late. Stay the Course. Out.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2010, 09:11 AM
  #99
NYRangers16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Westchester
Posts: 1,047
vCash: 500
At what point does staying the course no longer improve the team?

When we have the top 3 lines filled with quality players and 3 solid D pairs, what good are prospects? Where are the gonna play?

Then consider how many prospects make it as above average players.

At a certain point, prospects aren't gonna get us over the hump and we'll have a lot of good prospects sitting around....what then? Does the course change?

NYRangers16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2010, 09:24 AM
  #100
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 19,348
vCash: 500
I think the biggest thing we should do is flipping Roszival in order to make cap space for Richards.

As much as I love

Stepan
Anisimov
Boyle/Drury
Drury/Boyle

our top line alone would benefit so much more from

Richards
Stepan
Anisimov
Drury/Boyle (let the one not at center play wing.)

Richard makes our top line incredibly potent, even without a top left winger. He also provides a great veteran presence to a guy like Stepan (and others) and I think having Richards with the club will make us better even after he's gone. Look at how Dubinsky has picked up stuff from Jagr's type of game.

I just don't think we can pass on Richards if we can get him without destroying the core of this team.

BlueshirtBlitz 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 08:51 AM.

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.