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

Do you want Brad Richards?

View Poll Results: ???
Yes! He kills two birds with one stone. #1 center and PPQB. Plus he is an elite playmaker. 143 61.37%
No! He is 31 and injury prone and our FA history has not been very good. 28 12.02%
Not sure...maybe if it's for a 3-5 year deal but nothing more. 62 26.61%
Voters: 233. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-25-2011, 09:26 AM
  #76
Mikos87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poozer View Post
Since I am not sure, did Richards and Torts have a good relationship in Tampa? As I feel some guys are Torts guys and others are 100% not Torts guys.

I voted yes.
Torts gets on everyones case here and there but its Vinny that had the troubles Brad was the more consistent one of the two, just not as physically gifted, and did have the glamourous aura that Vinny had being hyped up and going 1st overall. Those two have had a bit of a sibling rivalry down in Tampa, and Torts was man of that household.

Mikos87 is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 09:29 AM
  #77
cenas*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,388
vCash: 500
If they can get him for 2-4 years then yes unless its a front loaded contract.

cenas* is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 09:31 AM
  #78
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
Nope. And unfortunately, his contract will make it very difficult to fill other needs.
Please tell me you're joking. "Other needs?"

Really?

Our biggest need is a #1 C. Richards is one.

Next biggest is a PP QB. Richards is one.

If anything, you should be happy. We're killing 2 birds with one stone with Richards.

beastly115 is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 09:34 AM
  #79
hpNYR
HF Forecaster
 
hpNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
Nope. And unfortunately, his contract will make it very difficult to fill other needs.
Trades are going to be needed more than ever for us...draft day will be huge.

hpNYR is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 09:41 AM
  #80
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,626
vCash: 500
Our biggest need is a power play that can actually score. Unfortunately, that's not going to be solved by a "PP QB" or a #1 center. The powerplay has no strategy. No single player, or combination thereof, is going to fix that.

This organization's success is completely reliant upon the development of our young players. Signing Richards is an option -- assuming it's for the right price -- but lets not pretend as if all of our problems will be solved. We still lack puck movers on the blue line, our star winger is made of glass, and our depth down the middle is a couple of soon-to-be 2nd and third year forwards along with a guy who is coming off a career year.

Your window of success is minimal with Richards. You're counting on an awful lot of pieces coming into place within a 4-5 year span.

Personally, if I were Sather, I'd be burning up the phone lines seeing what players were on the trade market before hedging my bets on Richards.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 09:43 AM
  #81
Evgeny Oliker
Registered User
 
Evgeny Oliker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,455
vCash: 500
lol

This poll makes zero sense because even if the Rangers want him, where is the cap room to sign him?

1. His cap this season was $7.8 - do we have that kind of money? No
2. He is coming off 2 back-to-back seasons with over a point per game production. Thus, he can actually ask for around $7 mill again and potentially get close to that.
3. He could also stay in Dallas if they figure out the ownership issue, which is the only thing that he doesnt like there so far.
4. There are A LOT of NHL teams with a ton more cap room than us so why is he coming here? He is going to take less money and a shorter term just to play with Torts? Seriously?

Evgeny Oliker is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 10:14 AM
  #82
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
I think the whole thing is a pipe dream. Richards has to know this is his last big payday. He's won a cup, so he's not desperate. There are better opportunites to win, better opportunities to make money, better opportunites for virtually everything in places other than here. To think he's going to take a deal that is both short term and less money to play here is crazy. I believe he stays in Dallas. Don't put it past that new owner in Buffalo to bust out his financial whoopin' stick come June 1st. But we have to get Cris Angel in here to mindfreak the salary cap in order to even be able to make the phone call june 1st, and I don't see how it's going to happen.

SML is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 10:19 AM
  #83
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 32,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
I think the whole thing is a pipe dream. Richards has to know this is his last big payday. He's won a cup, so he's not desperate. There are better opportunites to win, better opportunities to make money, better opportunites for virtually everything in places other than here. To think he's going to take a deal that is both short term and less money to play here is crazy. I believe he stays in Dallas. Don't put it past that new owner in Buffalo to bust out his financial whoopin' stick come June 1st. But we have to get Cris Angel in here to mindfreak the salary cap in order to even be able to make the phone call june 1st, and I don't see how it's going to happen.

Yup. Richards is insane if he takes anything less than a 5 year deal. Those hoping for a 3 or 4 year deal will be extremely disappointed.

darko is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 10:19 AM
  #84
pwoz
Registered User
 
pwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,534
vCash: 500
There's no way Richards signs for less than 3 years. Please no.

pwoz is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 10:35 AM
  #85
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Yes, no question about it.

Bardof425* is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 10:47 AM
  #86
NY Lito
Blueshirt Pride
 
NY Lito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darko View Post
No ... but Richards alone doesnt make us a contender.
I understand that. But he fills our arguably biggest need. Are you going to be able to get a center of his caliber through trade (without giving up half the team)? No.

And to all the people saying no...I don't want to hear you complaining about the lack of a #1 C for the next 2 years if we don't get him. Because if we don't get Richards, we will not have one for at least 2 years (and that's if Stepan develops into one, which is no sure thing.)

NY Lito is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 10:53 AM
  #87
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,525
vCash: 500
Elite #1A, proven winner, play making, center that this team needs, with Stanley Cup rings!!!

Out with Kelly Kisio Chris Drury and in with Mark Messier Brad Richards!!!!

This is a no brainer!!! Those who don't get it don't read enough history books or have forgotten theirs. Surely anyone who is in their mid 30s or older is gladly in favor of this.

vipernsx is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 10:55 AM
  #88
NYRKindms
Registered User
 
NYRKindms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 617
vCash: 500
With the CBA set to expire perhaps the Rangers could "roll the dice" and give him some crazy deal in the hopes that there will be some restructuring in the near future to give them relief if things don't work out.

No one really knows what the new CBA will look like. The rangers could take a risk and hope that the new deal will benefit them

I think there will be a lot of attention given to the over 35 contracts. I think there have been a lot of unforeseen consequences to the Players and NHL as a result of some of these rules.

NYRKindms is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 10:59 AM
  #89
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
I may be the only one who feels this way, but no. Stay the course. Develop your players. Manage your cap. Eventually you have the organizational depth to make a big time trade with a guy who really fits, not just the guy who's free.
This is the way I feel about the situation.

Honestly, I think a thread where we contemplate potential targets via trade is more constructive than rehashing the Richards debate for another 200 pages. Like nyr2k2 said, there are compelling arguments on both sides. In the end, I just don't think it gets the Rangers where they're trying to go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hpNYR View Post
Trades are going to be needed more than ever for us...draft day will be huge.
I think you may be right. I'm not saying a deal does or does not change the potential marriage of Richards and the Rangers, but some dramatic roster changes might change the way well all look towards the future.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:15 AM
  #90
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
I may be the only one who feels this way, but no. Stay the course. Develop your players. Manage your cap. Eventually you have the organizational depth to make a big time trade with a guy who really fits, not just the guy who's free. We can't have this many big ticket guys at one time. I'd love to see us follow a model where nobody gets paid more than Lundqvist. I think we have to lose Drury and Redden for good before we bring in another 7m$ player.
Philly never won the Stanley cup for all the guys they gave up for Eric Lindros, neither did the LA kings for what they gave up for Wayne Gretzky.

When the Rangers chose to sign Mark Messier as an UFA because they lacked that elite #1 Center and proven winner in their organization it took the team to the next level. The assets they had in reserves by not trading for him, they then used to acquire the other pieces needed to assemble the SC Championship Team.

This team already has most of the other pieces necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hpNYR View Post
I think the bigger question is will Richards and Gaborik mesh?
He doesn't have to. Richards use to play with Neil and Eriksson in Dallas. To me that translates into guys like Dubinsky and Callahan in NY and OH BABY would that be something!!!!! They could both be 30 goal scorers with an elite playmaker between them.

Gaborik on the other hand could be on the 2nd scoring line centered by Stepan who is a fine playmaker himself, we just need a capable winger for that line (Flieschman?). Provided Gaborik returns to his 2010 form and Stepan continues to improve. The line can provide the Rangers with two high powered options.


Last edited by vipernsx: 04-25-2011 at 11:29 AM.
vipernsx is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:19 AM
  #91
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2forsbergaura1 View Post
This poll makes zero sense because even if the Rangers want him, where is the cap room to sign him?

1. His cap this season was $7.8 - do we have that kind of money? No
2. He is coming off 2 back-to-back seasons with over a point per game production. Thus, he can actually ask for around $7 mill again and potentially get close to that.
3. He could also stay in Dallas if they figure out the ownership issue, which is the only thing that he doesnt like there so far.
4. There are A LOT of NHL teams with a ton more cap room than us so why is he coming here? He is going to take less money and a shorter term just to play with Torts? Seriously?
The cap room is there. We've been over it many times. If Drury chooses not to hang them up he can be bought out. Also, Wolski can be traded. Either one of those moves (along with the higher cap) lets Richards fit. Will he want to come here? We don't know for sure...but it does at least sound like we're on the short list.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:26 AM
  #92
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post
Please tell me you're joking. "Other needs?"

Really?

Our biggest need is a #1 C. Richards is one.

Next biggest is a PP QB. Richards is one.

If anything, you should be happy. We're killing 2 birds with one stone with Richards.
Come on, alph. You're acting like Richards solves everything and then tosses a cure for cancer into the bargain. He's a good player who will cost a ton and a half of money. I'm not as sold on Richards as Savior to be completely comfortable with the type of contract he's going to want. Am I out and out against the signing? No, of course not. But his contract will limit what this team can do. Despite the popular opinion on this board, we're not a player away from contending.

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:29 AM
  #93
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
Come on, alph. You're acting like Richards solves everything and then tosses a cure for cancer into the bargain. He's a good player who will cost a ton and a half of money. I'm not as sold on Richards as Savior to be completely comfortable with the type of contract he's going to want. Am I out and out against the signing? No, of course not. But his contract will limit what this team can do. Despite the popular opinion on this board, we're not a player away from contending.
That's true, but if you swap Drury for Richards you have to admit the team is significantly better on paper, no?

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:30 AM
  #94
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
Philly never won the Stanley cup for all the guys they gave up for Eric Lindros, neither did the LA kings for what they gave up for Wayne Gretzky.

When the Rangers chose to sign Mark Messier as an UFA because they lacked that elite #1 Center and proven winner in their organization it took the team to the next level. The assets they had in reserves by not trading for him, they then used to acquire the other pieces needed to assemble the SC Championship Team.
Messier was traded to the Rangers for Louie DeBrusk, Bernie Nicholls, and Steven Rice.

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:37 AM
  #95
allstar3970
Registered User
 
allstar3970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
Messier was traded to the Rangers for Louie DeBrusk, Bernie Nicholls, and Steven Rice.
you're fighting a losing battle. I see people refer to Mess as a UFA signing at least once or twice a week.

allstar3970 is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:41 AM
  #96
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
Elite #1A, proven winner, play making, center that this team needs, with Stanley Cup rings!!!

Out with Kelly Kisio Chris Drury and in with Mark Messier Brad Richards!!!!

This is a no brainer!!! Those who don't get it don't read enough history books or have forgotten theirs. Surely anyone who is in their mid 30s or older is gladly in favor of this.
I'm in my late 30's and I'm not. Because my recollection of Ranger History is this: Nearly every single player we've signed since true unrestricted free agency began has fallen short of what we've expected. The last guy I can recall who performed at a level higher than what we thought we'd get when we signed him was Adam Graves way back in the days when you had to give compensation back for signing a Free Agent. Other than that, who have we brought in that we haven't wished we didn't bring in by the second or third year of the deal? How many times do you have to burn yourself on the stove before you know it's hot?

SML is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:44 AM
  #97
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
When the Rangers chose to sign Mark Messier as an UFA because they lacked that elite #1 Center and proven winner in their organization it took the team to the next level. The assets they had in reserves by not trading for him, they then used to acquire the other pieces needed to assemble the SC Championship Team.

.
I'm just going to let you off the hook on this one. You're saying people don't read their history books and then you fire off this gem. You're welcome.

SML is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:47 AM
  #98
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
Philly never won the Stanley cup for all the guys they gave up for Eric Lindros, neither did the LA kings for what they gave up for Wayne Gretzky.
Those are probably not great examples.

The Hawks traded Matt Ellison and a 3rd for Patrick Sharp. I'm not going to go as far as saying Sharp delivered a Cup to Chicago, but you could argue they don't win it without him. If nothing else, it solidified a developing core with a developing player. They added that prolific UFA in Hossa when they felt their window of opportunity was open and it put them over the top.

Richards doesn't put this Ranger team over the top.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:49 AM
  #99
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
That's true, but if you swap Drury for Richards you have to admit the team is significantly better on paper, no?
Of course. I'm not anti-Richards. But can they get rid of Drury? Or rather...will they?

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 11:50 AM
  #100
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
Those are probably not great examples.

The Hawks traded Matt Ellison and a 3rd for Patrick Sharp. I'm not going to go as far as saying Sharp delivered a Cup to Chicago, but you could argue they don't win it without him. If nothing else, it solidified a developing core with a developing player. They added that prolific UFA in Hossa when they felt their window of opportunity was open and it put them over the top.

Richards doesn't put this Ranger team over the top.
True, but perhaps the additional experience of the young guys as well as a couple other key signings does in 2013 or 2014. The question is whether Richards will still have his A game 2 or 3 years from now.

broadwayblue is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:03 AM.

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.