McCabe is a turnover machine. Having said that, the powerplay points sure are nice. Its very rare that the Rangers moves to "fix" something work out, but this one seems like a good move.
Nothing to discuss really... Two completely different players who happen to play the same position at completely different price tags.
Not taking a position either way, but there was a lot of discussion pre-deadline about going after Kaberle. Since I live in New England and catch a lot of Bruins game and watched last nights Bruins/Leafs game thought I would throw it out there. Kaberle's PP role seems to be setting up the one-timer for Chara which he is doing quite well...Kaberle's production or lack thereof IMHO is more a reslt of Julien's PP then his ability. BTW, would not be surprised to see Julein get LouLammed in Boston before the season ends.
I also think McCabe is a turnover waiting to happen, man he is freakin brutal.
Kaberle does more then just play the PP, though. It's hard to compare the two because of that. McCabe is playing on the bottom pairing as well as the PP. I'm pretty sure Kaberle plays in the Bruins top 4 and logs significantly more minutes then McCabe does for the Rangers now.
Wish TSN broke down the average minutes played for each team they played for this season, instead of averaging the two together.
Still a solid pick-up for the Rangers that has helped their PP big time.
When comparing the respective costs to acquire each player, the McCabe deal is astronomically better than the Kaberle deal.
That being said, even though he's put up less points, Kaberle is a lot better than McCabe.
EDIT:
Don't disagree that Kaberle is a lot better, and your cost point is a good one. As previously posted there are a number of differences between the two players, although both were brought in to improve the respective teams PP, as hard as it is to believe the Broons have a worse PP than the Rangers...who woulda thunk it
still can't believe that most people here wanted kaberle. watch the hnic segment on him from last night - glenn healey had it right. Wilson wanted rid of him because he couldnt trust him in any situation defensively and the guy was weak sauce physically. he doesnt have a winner's mentality. just look at the boston goal yesterday where kaberle does a great traffic cone impression.
mccabe isnt the greatest defender but he brings leadership and physicality - as well as a different look on the pp meaning that opponents have to defend something other than the pass.
The Bruins have a much better chance at a Cup than the Rangers do. It was much more in their interest to overpay for a role player than it was for us. Until McCabe scored the other night I thought that he was mostly invisible. I don't know whether the power play production increase is directly related to McCabe or not. If it is, it's certainly not obvious. And I haven't seen that legendary shot that I remember from his younger days.
The Bruins have a much better chance at a Cup than the Rangers do. It was much more in their interest to overpay for a role player than it was for us. Until McCabe scored the other night I thought that he was mostly invisible. I don't know whether the power play production increase is directly related to McCabe or not. If it is, it's certainly not obvious. And I haven't seen that legendary shot that I remember from his younger days.
I think that invisible is a bit harsh.
The havoc that has been created in front of the net due to his shot from the point alone has made the PP a bit more dangerous.
He's not someone that is going to be very noticeable at 5 on 5, but then again it's not why he was brought here.
The team is scoring more goals, the PP is more dangerous thus making the Rangers a tougher team to play against.
His skill set is something that this team absolutely needed at the time he was acquired and it's because of that that I favor this trade over the Boton acquisition of Kaberle.
Boston was a very good team before the Kabs deal, Kaberle has not greatly improved any particular area of that team. He fortifies an already good team, McCabe has made his team better and therein lies the difference.
The PP looks light years different than prior to his arrival... weather it's due to him, his shot, or a mentality that having a combo of those does for the team...
If you compare recent play, then definitely McCabe. Both him and Kaberle have similar offensive talents. McCabe has a better shot, but Kaberle is a much better passer. However, McCabe's first pass is not as good as Kaberle's.
McCabe has more points (albeit only 1 more) than Kaberle in 4 less games and they have the same +/-, and Boston gave up one of their top prospects and a 1st round pick whereas the Rangers gave up a measly 3rd rounder and Tim Kennedy. I think so far the Rangers made the better deal.
With Staal's injury I'd rather have McCabe as the third pairing and getting the heat for poor defensive play than Del Zotto being put under that microscope. The fact that he is producing on the PP is pure gravy. We have 7 dmen that can all play - with varying degrees of effectiveness of course - while still giving MDZ the chance to develop at a controlled pace.
This was a very good and very cheap pick up. If you became a Rangers fan in the past 3 years you would end up thinking Sather is actually a decent GM...
Discuss...there's nothing to discuss. 10 games < a career. Kaberle is much better than McCabe, and the Bruins are a lot better than the Rangers.
In your excitement to bash the rangers you forgot that the question was which was a better deal. Meaning price tag should be considered. It wasn't who is the better player, again it's what has been the better deal.
Hard to knock the rangers when you actually answer the question being asked here. We got McCabe for nothing, Boston gave up a ton for Kaberle. And for their main purpose, the pp, McCabe has produced more than Kaberle.
And although it has nothing to do with this thread at all, and is really out of place I'd counter your claim the the bruins are a lot better than us. You love focusing on big names, elite talents. Who do the bruins have up front carrying the load? Anyone in the same galaxy as Gaborik in terms of pure offensive talent? I think not.
McCabe is a turnover machine. Having said that, the powerplay points sure are nice. Its very rare that the Rangers moves to "fix" something work out, but this one seems like a good move.
I'd still take Kaberle tho
Mccabes a turnover machine? Have you been watching him play in new york at all?
And how is it rare that sathers moves work out? I'd say the higgins/kotalik-oli/prust trade worked out offensively with oli putting up decent numbers and getting prust, nik antropov for a pick worked out offensively as well.
And when asking which was the better deal
Florida Panthers traded Bryan McCabe to the New York Rangers for Tim Kennedy and a third-round draft pick in 2011.
Toronto Maple Leafs traded Tomas Kaberle to the Boston Bruins for Joe Colborne, a first-round draft pick in 2011 and a conditional draft pick in 2012.
And given point totals thus far
the guy has been at one club, changing for him will take possibly a bit longer to get used to new surrounding.
My own feelings are that Kaberle never wanted to leave Toronto, and would love to go back, but he didn't want to leave the kind of legacy that Sundin did, for example. He walked and left his team with nothing.
While I agree with the people who say "stop making McCabe out to be more than he is", I'd also have to say that the Kaberle trade does look really bad right now for Boston, and he hasn't done **** for them.
I was never a big fan of Kaberle, always thought he was overrated (not great defensively, not physical at all, and gets bowled over by bigger more physical skilled forwards) but he's better than McCabe defensively at this point, and is a better skater and power play qb.
With all of that being said, I'd still rather not give up what Boston gave up for him.
mccabe has been somewhere between below average, and an absolute cluster**** in his own zone. however i think hes helped the pp immensely by giving making the shot up high a legitimate threat, making the opposing players play a little higher, and therefore a little more spread out.
In your excitement to bash the rangers you forgot that the question was which was a better deal. Meaning price tag should be considered. It wasn't who is the better player, again it's what has been the better deal.
Hard to knock the rangers when you actually answer the question being asked here. We got McCabe for nothing, Boston gave up a ton for Kaberle. And for their main purpose, the pp, McCabe has produced more than Kaberle.
If you think the McCabe deal is better because of the last 10 games...well, that's simply preposterous. McCabe is terrible at even strength. Kaberle is not. And he's too good of a player to not eventually start to mesh with his team. McCabe was acquired to play on the PP, where it's a little bit easier to settle in. Doesn't have to worry that much about even strength. Doesn't play much even strength.
Kaberle and the Bruins will figure it out. McCabe is a minor player for the Rangers. And the Bruins had reason to try and acquire Kaberle. They have a serious chance to get to the conference finals. The Rangers gave up a 3rd rd pick for a guy that's going to get them a first round exit, more than likely. Yay.
Quote:
And although it has nothing to do with this thread at all, and is really out of place I'd counter your claim the the bruins are a lot better than us. You love focusing on big names, elite talents. Who do the bruins have up front carrying the load? Anyone in the same galaxy as Gaborik in terms of pure offensive talent? I think not.
Big names? I don't care about names. I care about results. And what I'm focused on is winning Stanley Cups and watching professional hockey being played at the highest level. What a coincidence, the team that provides both more often than any other is chock full of elite talent. Pretty hard to miss that pattern.
Gaborik is at his best when he hardly touches the puck. That's because as talented as Gaborik is, he has trouble creating offense for himself. He's not that big, not that strong, and fragile to boot. This effect renders his cosmic offensive talent somewhat useless, since it's difficult for him to implement it into the game. What he can thrive off of, however, is his speed and his incredible shot. He should only be handling the puck in the couple seconds (or less) just before he shoots the puck.
The Bruins don't have anyone that is as talented as Gaborik (not healthy and in uniform, anyway), butt hey do have a bunch of very solid offensive players and they have an incredible all-around defenseman, another very good offensive defenseman, who will help make up for their lack of offensive firepower. I think the Rangers would have an easier time beating either the Capitals, or the Crosby-less Penguins, and possibly the Lightning than they would Boston. I wouldn't want to play Boston.
