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

Comparing Messier/Richards Acquisitions (and state of franchises), 20 years later.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-03-2011, 10:54 AM
  #76
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotmonte View Post
Zubov played in Russia and it was not known if he would come to America.

MDZ played an NHL SEASON, A COMPLETE ONE and couldnt make the team the following year on a rookie defense team.

MDZ might turn into a nice player, but you are hoping he turns into Zubov is like hoping callahan turns into Messier. Just because they are both good leaders and a forward and Callahan is a future captain and can pot the goals, does NOT mean he will be a Messier.

Same argument. Stop over glamoring our prospects. It does NO GOOD FOR THEM and. If and when he falls from the argument that he will not be a Zubov, you are gonna be all upset and throw him into every trade proposal on this board.

So lets just leave it as MDZ needs to prove himself as an NHL PLAYER before we can mock him up to one of the greats..

You are a VERY biased fan. You should take off your homer glasses and realize he is a PROSPECT.

I guess Kreider will be better than Adam Graves, no? I mean, he is touted as a big kid who can score.
First off it is HFBoard. Do you know what HF stands for? Exactly.
You have no idea why MDZ was sent down and you are already writing him off. You haven't seen Zubov playing in NY, I am sure. I have. MDZ looks better. Zubov did not impress very much. No one would argue he was solid, but when he was traded it was like when Tyutin (closest to Zubov) was traded. Don't get me wrong, Zubov's trade was a mistake, but it was in hindsight. That is why I was against Tyutin's trade.
MDZ, IMO, may not reach Leetch greatness, but he is certainly can challenge Zubov's.

The comparison to Messier is not fair. Messier came in here as a future HOF to lead a pretty talented young group, while Richards comes to a very much mediocre team with no intentions to take over really. The similarity, as far as I remember, was both have had health concerns. That is where it ends, I guess. Mess came to take this team to the next level. Nothing will take 2011 Rangers anywhere. Richards is to sustain us at best. We should be happy if team makes a playoffs with him.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2011, 11:18 AM
  #77
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Classic summer thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy Mallette View Post
The better parallel would be to our acquisition of Bernie Nicholls in '89(?).
Welcome and, like many others, just wanted to say good comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
wow, just looked at his numbers! I had forgotten what an offensive power he was
Me too Brook. 1 season removed from 150 points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Why do people bring up Doug Weight?
You'd have the Weight comparison if Stepan takes another step in his development and gets dealt next year for today's equivalent of Tik. You know it was a bitter pill to swallow at the time RB, but, yah, this team has shown a commitment to the young core, hasn't dealt a top prospect yet and could never swing one of these Weight/Amonte/Messier-type deals in a capped world.

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2011, 12:33 PM
  #78
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,466
vCash: 500
Richards does not make the team who just finished 8th in the EC a President's Trophy team.

The 1990 and 1991 pre-Messier Rangers were one of the better teams in the NHL -- one of those seasons with a sub-par/injured Leetch.


End of Story.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2011, 01:02 PM
  #79
alkurtz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 938
vCash: 500
Hard to recall exactly what the mindset was just before Mess arrived. I think we were in the 3rd year of the Roger Nielson coaching regime: I remember more about a few summers before when the team was in total disarray after the destruction of the Esposito era and it was well into the summer before we even hired a coach. I seem to recall something about the fact that nobody wanted to come and coach here....that was how bad things were before we picked Nielson up off of the scrap heap and he stablized the team.

The year before Mess came we were OK, made the playoffs but lost in the first round. It was about this time when I was on a camping trip with my family in Newfoundland and I remember talking to a family from there about hockey and saying to them that when I was in my 20s (which would have been in the late 1960s) that I used to joke that I would go through my entire life without ever seeing the Rangers win the Cup. But now that I was in my 40s, it wasn't a joke anymore. Kind of sums up my attitude about the time; we had a good team: Leetch, Nichols, Gartner, James Patrick, Turcotte, Beezer; but not a real cup contender.

I think the talk of training camp that year was about Amonte and Weight who I recall being described as the best young Ranger C/RW combination since Ratelle and Gilbert (and yes, Stepan has reminded me of Weight since day 1). Again, I don't recall exactly, but my sense was that we had a fine young core and some good vets, would be a pretty good team but the Cup was a far off fantasy.

Though I was thrilled to get Mess, I was one of those slightly skeptical due to his injuries and age. But I was immediately won over. His sheer presence dominated the team. We need to remember that Mess was already a legendary player when he arrived. I've always felt that he is the most unique player I have ever seen in any team sport, bar none. Everything about the Rangers changed after he arrived.

I am a big Brad Richards fan; always have been and I'm thrilled we signed him. He is a legit #1, elite center but he is not Mess. We can't forget that Mess makes every list of the greatest players of all time. Some lists would put him in the top ten. Yes we have the benefit of looking back at his entire career while Richards hopefully has more chapters to write. Richards' leadership skills are more like Drury's: behind the scenes, strong silent type. And we certainly know how most posters felt about Dru.

We also can't forget how good that 94 team was. I remember one early season game where they went into Toronto on a Saturday night and totally blew the Leafs out of the water. The Leafs writers were in awe of how fast and skilled the Rangers were.

Again, we have the benefit of looking back and seeing how things went after they happened. We can see the whole arc of career: Graves had enormous problems scoring when he first came here. In his early days, nobody would have ever predicted that he would be a 50 goal scorer. My feeling is that this Ranger team is not anywhere as good as that was; but memory often cannot be trusted. It also took Mess three years to deliver the Cup: in his second year here we didn't even make the playoffs!

Time will tell. If we win the Cup during Richards' time here our perceptions will change, everything will be seen through a golden haze. But we have not even made it to out of the second round yet. But, nobody compares with Mess. Nobody is remotely in his class. That takes nothing away from BR but come on. Mess was one of a kind.

alkurtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2011, 02:47 PM
  #80
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Why do people bring up Doug Weight? Can the mods just close this thread because a significant portion of this board doesn't remember the Theo Fleury days so there's zero chance they will remember how the 1990-91 Rangers were embarrassed in the playoffs by the Caps?

Weight was a 4th line center on the Rangers. Mark Messier. Darren Turcotte. Sergei Nemchinov. Randy Gilhen had a more significant role on the Rangers 91-92 than Weight did. Weight was traded the following season to Edmonton.

People treat Kovalev like a deity. The Rangers tried to trade him to Vancouver during the Cup season for Petr Nedved. The Rangers won in 1994 without a 2nd line center. So if HFBOARDS.com was around in 1994,the experts would rule out out the Rangers because they didn't have a 2nd line center.
13 Sergei Nemchinov 1964-01-14 27 C 73 30 28 58 15 19 13 1 4 5 8
8 Darren Turcotte 1968-03-02 23 C 71 30 23 53 57 11 8 4 0 4 6
39 Doug Weight 1971-01-21 20 C 53 8 22 30 23 -3 7 2 2 4 0
15 Randy Gilhen From Los Angeles 1963-06-13 28 L 40 7 7 14 14 5 13 1 2 3 2

Gilhen is listed a left-wing in hockeydb and came over from LA half way through the season. As a 20 year old rookie in 1991-2 Weight scored 30 points (10th on the team) and from what I remember, people were very pleased with his first season as a professional player (I certainly was). He came out of a college program and only played 9 games in the AHL. While very few people (including myself) thought he was going to end up as good as he did, most of us were thrilled to have him and thought he would be an excellent 3rd line center who could move up and center the 3nd line when needed. He played his position well, was defensively aware and was a very good passer. Don't remember how well he did on face-offs, but when you're on a team with Messier and Nemchinov (who by the way scored 30 goals and 58 points, not exactly chopped liver), that's something you have the luxury to work on. Many fans were quite upset when he was traded, although most recognized the player coming back as an important piece for a team that was gunning to stop the 1940 chants that were heard all over the league.

Some of us do have memories that stretch beyond the last decade.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2011, 03:50 PM
  #81
Hollywood Hulk Hogan
nWo 4 Life Brother
 
Hollywood Hulk Hogan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Hollywood Hulk Hogan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightide85 View Post
First of all, don't put words in my mouth.

Sure, the President's trophy is nice, but it's not the Cup.

If you think the thread is silly, that's your opinion. For me, the acquisition of Richards gives me the feeling that we can contend.

Do I think we are ready for the Cup? No

Do I think Richards could be the key acquisition of a future Stanley Cup team? Yes

The maturation process for this team is still somewhat in its infancy, however I do believe there are major similarities between the 2 acquisitions.

Sue me if I don't start another BORING thread like most of the threads that go around here that, to me, are a total snore-fest.

I'd rather make people think and stir the pot a bit.
Ok. I get your drift about the other boring threads on this site and I agree with you in that respect. However and to reiterate, I don't see any other similarities between our acquisitions of Messier and Richards other than they were the same age when they came here. Messier, a proven winner, leader and one of the fiercest competitors to ever play the game came to a Rangers organization in 1991 that already had players in place who were far superior talentwise to what the current team/organization has to offer. While we are headed in the right direction in terms of building through the draft and adding key players via the free agency route, we still have nobody here who is anywhere near the talent level of Messier, Leetch, Richter, Zubov, Graves and Kovalev nor as good as the players who were traded away prior to the cup that we had either drafted or traded for during that era(Amonte, Weight, Gartner).

Hollywood Hulk Hogan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2011, 03:57 PM
  #82
Hollywood Hulk Hogan
nWo 4 Life Brother
 
Hollywood Hulk Hogan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Hollywood Hulk Hogan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
This team is not as good as that team was. The major, major difference is there is no one even close to as good as Zubov in terms of offensive skill from the blueline, much less Leetch. No real counter for Amonte or Kovalev. Dubinsky is the closest thing, I guess. The rest of the squad can kind of match, I suppose. Nemchinov/Anisimov, Weight/Stepan, Graves/Callahan, Gartner/Gaborik.

It's tough to compare because the game has changed so much in terms of the rules, style of play, conditioning, equipment.



Brad Richards is easily one of the top ten playmaking forwards in the league, and his passing skills are nothing but elite. Also, the Conn Smythe Trophy is awarded to the most valuable player of the entire playoffs. This is not the NBA. Brad Richards was, is, and always will be a better player than Vincent Lecavalier, particularly when it comes to playmaking, which is generally the most important quality needed from a top line center.
Your dead wrong pal. Brad Richards is an elite playmaker but he is hardly an elite level player in this league. He also hasn't had anywhere near the career of Vincent Lecavalier who was a 50+ goal scorer twice while Brad Richards has yet to crack 30 goals. There are 15 to 20 players in the league who are easily better overall players than Brad Richards.
Next thing you know you'll be telling us that Maryanne Garorik is an elite level player too.

Hollywood Hulk Hogan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2011, 05:48 PM
  #83
Hollywood Hulk Hogan
nWo 4 Life Brother
 
Hollywood Hulk Hogan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Hollywood Hulk Hogan
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRedressor View Post
All credibility in the discussion lost right there. Go learn how to determine what elite talent is and then maybe people will take your comments seriously in this thread.
So you are going to teach me what elite level talent is?
Who are the elite level players on our team at present? Queen Henrik? Perhaps but only during the regular season. Anybody else on our team that you in your divine wisdom want to categorize as an elite level player? Maryanne Gaborik? Don't make me laugh! Brad Richards? Like I said, he is an elite level playmaker and NOT an elite level player. Thanks for the lesson chief but I already forgot more about hockey than you'll ever know.

Hollywood Hulk Hogan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2011, 08:56 PM
  #84
trilobyte
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 16,492
vCash: 500
I see no comparison between Richards and Messier, except that they obviously shared some superlative skills.

Messier was a dominator, he wanted something to get in his way so he could put it down. There weren't many guys like Messier, ever.

Edit: since this is not supposed to be a comparison of the two players, and more a comparison of what the acquisitions of each mean, I would say that Messier would get teammates to play the way he wanted, or else. Whatever the politics of NYR leading up to, and past, the Cup win, he was what was needed to force a team to coalesce. Let's face it, how long had it been since Rangers players could look down the bench and see a guy like Mess. Never?


Last edited by trilobyte: 08-03-2011 at 09:02 PM.
trilobyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2011, 09:30 AM
  #85
kovazub94
Enigmatic
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4th Line Grinder View Post
So you are going to teach me what elite level talent is?
Who are the elite level players on our team at present? Queen Henrik? Perhaps but only during the regular season. Anybody else on our team that you in your divine wisdom want to categorize as an elite level player? Maryanne Gaborik? Don't make me laugh! Brad Richards? Like I said, he is an elite level playmaker and NOT an elite level player. Thanks for the lesson chief but I already forgot more about hockey than you'll ever know.
Clinical gender confusion syndrome? If so, time for medication refill. If not, I agree with others - no credibility as either a Rangers fan or even unbiased hockey fan.

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2011, 06:41 PM
  #86
GordonGecko
Coaching Fail
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 5,089
vCash: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightide85 View Post
Well, we are approaching the 20th anniversary of our acquisition of "The Captain", and I believe their are some similarities of the aforementioned deal, and our signing of a one Mr. Brad Richards.
This thread is so messed up, just because it can't be 20 years already holy sh** I'm old

GordonGecko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2011, 12:39 AM
  #87
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,361
vCash: 500
The 1991 Rangers entering this offseason were further ahead, about a good step or two than the 2011 Rangers.

The 91-92 team started off the season 2 superstars (Messier & Gartner), and a young star on the verge of becoming a superstar (Leetch), and what was arguably the best goaltending tandem in the league (Beezer & Richter). They had two young NCAA Stars (Amonte and Weight) they had guys who could score (Graves, Turcotte, Ogrodnick & Kerr - even though these two were near the end of their careers, they provided depth) and a very solid top 4 that consisted of Leetch, Patrick, Lowe, Beukeboom and depth guys like Cirella, etc. They were a team that had potential... but no one knew how rookies like Amonte, Nemchinov, and Weight would play (65 goals from Amonte and Nemchinov) and Messier just helped push along their development, immensly.

You look at the team now, they're probably about two steps behind. They have two star players in Richards and Gaborik, and one of the top 3 goaltenders in the league in Lundqvist. They don't have a single defender that even resembles a Leetch, and they have some prospects with hype that have quite of bit of potential ready to step in, Thomas, Hagelin, Erixon. They don't have scoring depth, as we all know they've been one of the worst offensive teams in the league since Jagr's last 90+ point season. The power play is awful and has been since that time as well. The very early 90's teams weren't nearly this futile on the man advantage. The defense is one of the youngest corps in the league.

To me, the Rangers are a few things away from the cup.

- Experience, as this team in a few years will be deadly.
- Consistent offensive production from more than 1 line, nevermind a 2nd.
- A power forward who can score.
- An elite defender, a young one that's ready to take the next step (possibly Staal?)

To me, those are the things that the 91-92 team had that seperates them from the team now.

The Amity Affliction is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2011, 12:09 PM
  #88
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
The 1991 Rangers entering this offseason were further ahead, about a good step or two than the 2011 Rangers.

The 91-92 team started off the season 2 superstars (Messier & Gartner), and a young star on the verge of becoming a superstar (Leetch), and what was arguably the best goaltending tandem in the league (Beezer & Richter). They had two young NCAA Stars (Amonte and Weight) they had guys who could score (Graves, Turcotte, Ogrodnick & Kerr - even though these two were near the end of their careers, they provided depth) and a very solid top 4 that consisted of Leetch, Patrick, Lowe, Beukeboom and depth guys like Cirella, etc. They were a team that had potential... but no one knew how rookies like Amonte, Nemchinov, and Weight would play (65 goals from Amonte and Nemchinov) and Messier just helped push along their development, immensly.

You look at the team now, they're probably about two steps behind. They have two star players in Richards and Gaborik, and one of the top 3 goaltenders in the league in Lundqvist. They don't have a single defender that even resembles a Leetch, and they have some prospects with hype that have quite of bit of potential ready to step in, Thomas, Hagelin, Erixon. They don't have scoring depth, as we all know they've been one of the worst offensive teams in the league since Jagr's last 90+ point season. The power play is awful and has been since that time as well. The very early 90's teams weren't nearly this futile on the man advantage. The defense is one of the youngest corps in the league.

To me, the Rangers are a few things away from the cup.

- Experience, as this team in a few years will be deadly.
- Consistent offensive production from more than 1 line, nevermind a 2nd.
- A power forward who can score.
- An elite defender, a young one that's ready to take the next step (possibly Staal?)

To me, those are the things that the 91-92 team had that seperates them from the team now.
Just to be fair, Lowe was not on the team at this point. He came a year later.

KreiMeARiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2011, 02:59 PM
  #89
sbjnyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
The 1991 Rangers entering this offseason were further ahead, about a good step or two than the 2011 Rangers.

The 91-92 team started off the season 2 superstars (Messier & Gartner), and a young star on the verge of becoming a superstar (Leetch), and what was arguably the best goaltending tandem in the league (Beezer & Richter). They had two young NCAA Stars (Amonte and Weight) they had guys who could score (Graves, Turcotte, Ogrodnick & Kerr - even though these two were near the end of their careers, they provided depth) and a very solid top 4 that consisted of Leetch, Patrick, Lowe, Beukeboom and depth guys like Cirella, etc. They were a team that had potential... but no one knew how rookies like Amonte, Nemchinov, and Weight would play (65 goals from Amonte and Nemchinov) and Messier just helped push along their development, immensly.

You look at the team now, they're probably about two steps behind. They have two star players in Richards and Gaborik, and one of the top 3 goaltenders in the league in Lundqvist. They don't have a single defender that even resembles a Leetch, and they have some prospects with hype that have quite of bit of potential ready to step in, Thomas, Hagelin, Erixon. They don't have scoring depth, as we all know they've been one of the worst offensive teams in the league since Jagr's last 90+ point season. The power play is awful and has been since that time as well. The very early 90's teams weren't nearly this futile on the man advantage. The defense is one of the youngest corps in the league.

To me, the Rangers are a few things away from the cup.

- Experience, as this team in a few years will be deadly.
- Consistent offensive production from more than 1 line, nevermind a 2nd.
- A power forward who can score.
- An elite defender, a young one that's ready to take the next step (possibly Staal?)

To me, those are the things that the 91-92 team had that seperates them from the team now.
Just how good were they really? Rangers finished at the top of the regular season in 91-92 but they didn't even make the playoffs in 92-93, which was probably the most disappointing season I can remember (they out Mets'd the Mets).

For me the biggest difference between Messier and Richards is that Messier was the kind of player that will make me listen to a hockey game on the radio.

sbjnyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2011, 03:25 PM
  #90
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,461
vCash: 500
I hated the Zubov trade the day it happened. Just like the Norstrom trade. And to a lesser extent, Marc Savard. I knew he was gonna be good but I didn't know he would be 90 points good.

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2011, 05:05 PM
  #91
Swept In Seven
Disciple of The Zook
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4th Line Grinder View Post
Your dead wrong pal. Brad Richards is an elite playmaker but he is hardly an elite level player in this league. He also hasn't had anywhere near the career of Vincent Lecavalier who was a 50+ goal scorer twice while Brad Richards has yet to crack 30 goals. There are 15 to 20 players in the league who are easily better overall players than Brad Richards.
Next thing you know you'll be telling us that Maryanne Garorik is an elite level player too.
do you really have to ruin every thread you post with all of the ******** you spew out? This thread has nothing to do with Gabby, but you have to bring him up. Jump off the guys dick already

Swept In Seven 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 02:33 PM.

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.