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

Is it a good time to go after Backstrom...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-05-2011, 08:17 AM
  #26
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,543
vCash: 500
I'd be very interested in Backstrom if he was available, and you never know what a team is going to do after continued playoff disappointments...something is obviously wrong in DC, whether it's the coach or the makeup of the team, so we'll see.

But I don't expect him to be available and he'd probably be pretty pricey. I would be interested in something along the lines of Girardi, Anisimov, and a first plus a prospect, but I doubt Washington would be...

I like Girardi a lot after this season but it's possible he could be replaced within the organization (Sauer getting more minutes?) more or less and opens up a spot for some competition for guys like Del Zotto, Kundratek, and Valentenko

At any rate, worth inquiring if there's a possibility, but the possibility is quite slim IMO.

I think Washington gives Semin the boot and maybe Boudreau, and goes from there. Semin is an interesting player to think about but he's so, so ridiculously streaky that I can't tell if I'd want him, plus he might want a HUGE payout after next year. He might be the most skilled and dangerous player in the NHL when his game is on, but again, so freaking streaky that he boils down to either scoring hattricks or being invisible and taking hooking penalties.

Still, if no one else was available and Washington was willing to sell cheap on him (doubtful) I'd take a look

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:04 AM
  #27
kovazub94
Registered User
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Why so many of you are here against hypothetically trading for Backstrom while advocating getting Brad Richards is beyond me...

I mean, I understand if someone is against the trade if it would involve Staal or Lundquist (I personally wouldn't trade Callahan either) because they might consider this price to be too high.

But the others who say that we have an abundance of redundant 2-3 line players and then you bulk at trading some of these players away for a premier young 1st line center signed long term for a decent cap hit? Remember that a team that got the best player in a trade usually wins.

If you look to compare pros and cons in signing UFA BR or trading for Backstrom if the cost is Dubi, Girardi, a prospect and a pick you need to consider that:

1. One is 23 years old while the other is 31. In this case Backstrom better fits our team in a long term because he's in the same age group as the "core" of the Rangers roster.

2. One is going to give you 9 prime years of his career while the other is almost guaranteed to not live up to the $$$ contract for some portion of the contract and we'd have to pray that it's not going to be too big of a portion.

3. Backstrom cap hit at $6.7 is very decent and definitely less than what BR would get if we sign him.

4. If we need to address replacing current roster players - let's start with Girardi. It's been noted numerously that we have 4 D-men with a very similar skill set and class level (Staal is in a higher class level) and we have a couple of more with similar attributes knocking on a door to make it soon. This situation is exactly where it makes sense to pull a trade for higher caliber player.

5. Replacing Dubinsky might be more difficult (because his impact on the Rangers is not just his 50 points) but it's definitely easier (either from within the organization or UFA or a trade) than finding a player like Backstrom.

Overall I don't think the Rangers would have a chance at Backstrom because I don't think Washington would go this route and even if they do, they'd probably trade him to the Western Conference but it is something I'd consider before going after BR.

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:04 AM
  #28
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
I think anyone that says that Backstrom isn't a good fit on ANY team is insane. The guy plays all situations and plays all 3 at an elite level.

That being said, it's very unrealistic to think Washington will move him. Backstrom and Ovechkin are the core.

When they say changes are going to be made in Washington, they're talking about coaching changes, they're talking about beefing up their defense, they're talking about finding what's missing and adding it via trade and/or free agency. It won't involved moving their 2nd best player.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:09 AM
  #29
Jumbo*
TARGET: ACQUIRED
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by satrabyk View Post
I just watched Wash lose 4 straight once again ive been thinking they may be inclined to make some changes. They tried changing the system it didnt work to well. Sure vs a offensive depleted NYR they got by, although not by much, they still seemed to have problems. I know they may be looking to change the coach but George and the owner must be thinking of other ways to change the culture. Next is possible some player changes. After a poor performance point wise for Backstrom and the up and coming Johansson(plays very similar style) filling his role, is it possible Wash will look to move Backstrom.

The Rangers have played Wash very well during the regular season that would do well for there perception of our players. Its also clear they need more reliable depth that they might be looking to add esp from the Rangers guys who have created an identity of heart and soul guys. IDK i think i would really like a guy like Backstrom on this team and im wandering what it would take to make George really consider it during draft day etc. Do we have enough with taking Lundy off the table and possibly Staal? I know everyone wants Richards which would not be a bad option, im just wandering what people would give for a guy like this.


Yea because after 9 playoff games the Caps are all of a sudden going to give away a future elite player away for a few peanuts, or let alone at all. He is UNTOUCHABLE.


Jumbo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:10 AM
  #30
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
Why so many of you are here against hypothetically trading for Backstrom while advocating getting Brad Richards is beyond me...

I mean, I understand if someone is against the trade if it would involve Staal or Lundquist (I personally wouldn't trade Callahan either) because they might consider this price to be too high.

But the others who say that we have an abundance of redundant 2-3 line players and then you bulk at trading some of these players away for a premier young 1st line center signed long term for a decent cap hit? Remember that a team that got the best player in a trade usually wins.

If you look to compare pros and cons in signing UFA BR or trading for Backstrom if the cost is Dubi, Girardi, a prospect and a pick you need to consider that:

1. One is 23 years old while the other is 31. In this case Backstrom better fits our team in a long term because he's in the same age group as the "core" of the Rangers roster.

2. One is going to give you 9 prime years of his career while the other is almost guaranteed to not live up to the $$$ contract for some portion of the contract and we'd have to pray that it's not going to be too big of a portion.

3. Backstrom cap hit at $6.7 is very decent and definitely less than what BR would get if we sign him.

4. If we need to address replacing current roster players - let's start with Girardi. It's been noted numerously that we have 4 D-men with a very similar skill set and class level (Staal is in a higher class level) and we have a couple of more with similar attributes knocking on a door to make it soon. This situation is exactly where it makes sense to pull a trade for higher caliber player.

5. Replacing Dubinsky might be more difficult (because his impact on the Rangers is not just his 50 points) but it's definitely easier (either from within the organization or UFA or a trade) than finding a player like Backstrom.

Overall I don't think the Rangers would have a chance at Backstrom because I don't think Washington would go this route and even if they do, they'd probably trade him to the Western Conference but it is something I'd consider before going after BR.
Because one comes for free, while the other will cost significant assets. If you think Backstrom can be had without Staal or Callahan....i don't know what to tell you.

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:17 AM
  #31
kovazub94
Registered User
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface NYR View Post
Because one comes for free, while the other will cost significant assets. If you think Backstrom can be had without Staal or Callahan....i don't know what to tell you.
Did you read my whole post or just the sentence that you highlighted? Because you completely missed my point and in the very next sentence I wrote the following -

Originally Posted by kovazub94
Why so many of you are here against hypothetically trading for Backstrom while advocating getting Brad Richards is beyond me...

I mean, I understand if someone is against the trade if it would involve Staal or Lundquist (I personally wouldn't trade Callahan either) because they might consider this price to be too high.

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:21 AM
  #32
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,829
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckHead237 View Post


Yea because after 9 playoff games the Caps are all of a sudden going to give away a future elite player away for a few peanuts, or let alone at all. He is UNTOUCHABLE.

I'm not saying they will deal Backstrom — and if they did, it certainly wouldn't be for peanuts — but going out meekly again is going to result in some serious changes in Washington.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:21 AM
  #33
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,478
vCash: 500
If he was available, and could be had for the right price, you'd be a fool not to take him. He would be an ideal 1st line center for this team.

Semin? Tremendous offensive talent, and the best wrist shot in the league, but he's just too lazy and would be the new Tortorella whipping boy after a week.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:24 AM
  #34
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,829
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
Did you read my whole post or just the sentence that you highlighted? Because you completely missed my point and in the very next sentence I wrote the following -

Originally Posted by kovazub94
Why so many of you are here against hypothetically trading for Backstrom while advocating getting Brad Richards is beyond me...

I mean, I understand if someone is against the trade if it would involve Staal or Lundquist (I personally wouldn't trade Callahan either) because they might consider this price to be too high.
Well, then you answered your own question.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:25 AM
  #35
Jumbo*
TARGET: ACQUIRED
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I'm saying they will deal Backstrom and if they did, it certainly wouldn't be for peanuts but going out meekly again is going to result in some serious changes in Washington.
I just can't see it ever happening. They have an elite, elite goal scorer with AO, why would they ever trade away an elite playmaker? Backstrom obviously isn't in his prime yet but had shown he will likely be a 95-105 point scorer his prime years IMO.

If they trade him away all they will be doing is looking for another elite playmaker for AO which they likely won't find. Talk about 3 steps in the wrong direction.

They need defense, their offense will never be a problem.

Jumbo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:27 AM
  #36
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
Did you read my whole post or just the sentence that you highlighted? Because you completely missed my point and in the very next sentence I wrote the following -

Originally Posted by kovazub94
Why so many of you are here against hypothetically trading for Backstrom while advocating getting Brad Richards is beyond me...

I mean, I understand if someone is against the trade if it would involve Staal or Lundquist (I personally wouldn't trade Callahan either) because they might consider this price to be too high.
Yes, I did read it. But you're basically putting down people for not wanting Backstrom. Anyone would take Backstrom on this team for just money. But it is most certainly going to cost a signficant amount, that starts with Staal/Callahan and includes Kreider, Thomas, etc.

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:30 AM
  #37
EuroFlair
Nash 40g in 2014-15
 
EuroFlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: west coast
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,042
vCash: 50
Ofc I would like to see Backstrom as a Ranger but if when we look at what the Caps will ask for him is it a big NO.


Last edited by EuroFlair: 05-05-2011 at 09:40 AM.
EuroFlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:31 AM
  #38
kovazub94
Registered User
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Well, then you answered your own question.
I don't think so. Below is the "question"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94

But the others who say that we have an abundance of redundant 2-3 line players and then you bulk at trading some of these players away for a premier young 1st line center signed long term for a decent cap hit? Remember that a team that got the best player in a trade usually wins.

If you look to compare pros and cons in signing UFA BR or trading for Backstrom if the cost is Dubi, Girardi, a prospect and a pick you need to consider that:.

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:35 AM
  #39
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
I don't think so. Below is the "question"
There is absolutely no way Washington even considers that deal.

A 2nd pairing d-man on their team and a guy who has never put up 60 points for a 100 point center.

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:44 AM
  #40
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,247
vCash: 873
They move Semin before they move Backstrom.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:52 AM
  #41
kovazub94
Registered User
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface NYR View Post
Yes, I did read it. But you're basically putting down people for not wanting Backstrom. Anyone would take Backstrom on this team for just money. But it is most certainly going to cost a signficant amount, that starts with Staal/Callahan and includes Kreider, Thomas, etc.
First, I'm not putting anyone down (I don't know where you see it but if that's your impression - I apologize).
Second I've seen plenty of highly debated arguments here in the last of weeks re. getting BR. Then the same people that want BR argue against getting Backstrom (for what is a reasonable price tag) - I wanted to see why? If it's a prohibitively very high price - it's clear, if it's some thing else - I wanted to hear it.
I'm personally is 50/50 re. getting Brad Richards. I see him as someone the Rangers need on a many different levels. However I also see his age, and potential cap cost and our history with high price UFA as very significant negatives. From that perspective considering what it would take to get Backstrom is something definitely worth while pursuing IMHO.

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:58 AM
  #42
Vitto79
Registered User
 
Vitto79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sarnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRKING30 View Post
no way and no thanks
yea no way they move him, the tubby coach is gone, Semin for sure but besides that I doubt they move their top end talent

Vitto79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:59 AM
  #43
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
First, I'm not putting anyone down (I don't know where you see it but if that's your impression - I apologize).
Second I've seen plenty of highly debated arguments here in the last of weeks re. getting BR. Then the same people that want BR argue against getting Backstrom (for what is a reasonable price tag) - I wanted to see why? If it's a prohibitively very high price - it's clear, if it's some thing else - I wanted to hear it.
I'm personally is 50/50 re. getting Brad Richards. I see him as someone the Rangers need on a many different levels. However I also see his age, and potential cap cost and our history with high price UFA as very significant negatives. From that perspective considering what it would take to get Backstrom is something definitely worth while pursuing IMHO.
I'm just confused as to why you think a 100 point center will have a reasonable price tag? It's not like he's a slouch like Semin either. The guy is a hard worker and good all around player.

Finally, it bothers me that people bring up our past UFA signings to put down the opportunity at Richards. Gomez, Redden and Drury were nowhere NEAR the player Richards is and has been. None of those guys even came close to 90 points. Gomez was always a 2nd line center and Drury was basically 3rd except for a couple of seasons. Richards has ALWAYS been a legitimate number one center. If he was to fail here, I wouldn't blame Sather, like i've blamed him for Drury, Redden and Gomez, because all signs point to Richards still being able to produce at an extremely high level.

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 10:00 AM
  #44
kovazub94
Registered User
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface NYR View Post
There is absolutely no way Washington even considers that deal.

A 2nd pairing d-man on their team and a guy who has never put up 60 points for a 100 point center.

Fine, but I'm not so sure because they've seen "live" the impact that Girardi and Dubinsky have on overall make up a team. Because it's not something that Cap's roster is missing on a paper - they are stocked better than any other team and maybe only 2 - 3 other teams can compare. It's been the case for the last three - four seasons but they have nothing to show for it in play-offs except for early exits.

That's why they actually might consider what players like Girardi, Dubinsky can give them that they've been missing (plus 1 round pick plus either Kreider or Thomas or Grachev).

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 10:10 AM
  #45
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
Fine, but I'm not so sure because they've seen "live" the impact that Girardi and Dubinsky have on overall make up a team. Because it's not something that Cap's roster is missing on a paper - they are stocked better than any other team and maybe only 2 - 3 other teams can compare. It's been the case for the last three - four seasons but they have nothing to show for it in play-offs except for early exits.

That's why they actually might consider what players like Girardi, Dubinsky can give them that they've been missing (plus 1 round pick plus either Kreider or Thomas or Grachev).
Another team will offer a significantly better package than that.

If we would want Backstrom it would likely look something like this.

Staal
Stepan
Kreider
McIlrath/Del Zotto
1st

And im not even sure that would get it done.

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 10:11 AM
  #46
kovazub94
Registered User
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface NYR View Post
I'm just confused as to why you think a 100 point center will have a reasonable price tag? It's not like he's a slouch like Semin either. The guy is a hard worker and good all around player.

Finally, it bothers me that people bring up our past UFA signings to put down the opportunity at Richards. Gomez, Redden and Drury were nowhere NEAR the player Richards is and has been. None of those guys even came close to 90 points. Gomez was always a 2nd line center and Drury was basically 3rd except for a couple of seasons. Richards has ALWAYS been a legitimate number one center. If he was to fail here, I wouldn't blame Sather, like i've blamed him for Drury, Redden and Gomez, because all signs point to Richards still being able to produce at an extremely high level.
I guess I addressed your first point. The second is that it's not only Gomez, Redden or Drury. It's Lindros before them, Lafontaine (sp) and Bure and Nedved and Fleury and even the Great One and the Captain's second term etc. The Rangers have a long history of bringing established stars to NY and it never worked out nearly as expected. I understand that each situation had specific circumstances but overall it has not been good.

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 10:22 AM
  #47
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
I guess I addressed your first point. The second is that it's not only Gomez, Redden or Drury. It's Lindros before them, Lafontaine (sp) and Bure and Nedved and Fleury and even the Great One and the Captain's second term etc. The Rangers have a long history of bringing established stars to NY and it never worked out nearly as expected. I understand that each situation had specific circumstances but overall it has not been good.
Lindros was a flop, I'll give you that. Bure got hurt, but played great for the short time he was here. Nedved, Fleury and Lafontaine were all the best players on their teams, it was the supporting casts that were awful. And Gretzky made it to the ECF and led the Rangers in points. I don't know how that was a failure. Some of these weren't even Sather's moves.

If you want to bring up bad contracts, I'll give you Lindros, Holik, etc, but a lot of these guys had injury histories. It seems you have really been psychologically affected by the Rangers past signings which has caused you to overlook the fact that the team, as constructed is good, but not going anywhere unless they add an elite center, which Richards is. He was a PPG player this year, on a non-playoff team. He put up 91 points last season. The guy is legit, it would be a mistake not to sign him if we have the opportunity.

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 10:24 AM
  #48
satrabyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface NYR View Post
Not even close.

The talk starts with Staal.
Well to me value wise they are very close but i give the edge to Staal career wise. He is our 2nd best player after Lundy and the building block of our D core. If it start with Staal than this trade does not happen does it.

satrabyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 10:27 AM
  #49
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by satrabyk View Post
Well to me value wise they are very close but i give the edge to Staal career wise. He is our 2nd best player after Lundy and the building block of our D core. If it start with Staal than this trade does not happen does it.
Maybe value wise, they are equal to each team. But around the league Backstrom is ten times more valuable then Staal. 100 point, defensively capable centers, who can win faceoffs do not grow on trees. Neither do Staals, but their are many more d-men like Staal then centers like Backstrom.

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 10:27 AM
  #50
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,917
vCash: 50
Guy is a hell of a centerman and is what? 22 years old?

If Washington puts him on the market you give what you can to go after him. Especially right now.

No one is untouchable in this scenario.

__________________
"I have something better than proof: I have anecdotal evidence."
Fitzy 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 09:55 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.