HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Edmonton Journalist Links Oilers to Del Zotto

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-11-2011, 11:20 AM
  #101
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
You make me a list of #1 overalls that fell short like Daigle, and I'll make you a list of ones that didn't, and we'll see who's list is longer.
Longer? Yes. Still not a certainty. That is why no one trades a potentials. Neither EDM or NYR would go for that trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
It would be one thing if MDZ were already established, but he barely made the team.
Talent has little chance to make Torts team. He cannot handle anyone not named Callahan or Prust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
Let's not pretend he's Paul Coffey 1988.
Coffey would be a defensive liability in 2011 NHL. In 88 Paul was 27 years old. He was drafted 6th overall. We will never see Rangers that high in the draft.


Last edited by 94now: 10-11-2011 at 11:59 AM.
94now is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 11:42 AM
  #102
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,359
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
On a selective basis, if it obtains the results recommended, yes.

I kept Hank. This was not Lundqvist + Staal + Anisimov for Stamkos plus another 2 or 3 moves that gutted us.

I kept Staal and Erixon.
The core of the D has been maintained, we'll get enough out of V-tank, Parlett and the replacements..

I paid a high price, but I got us Hall and Paajarvi at minimum, also Tyler Pitlick.

That is really what this boils down to, a judgment call, of if dramatically improving our Fs with a custom addition of 2 All Star calibre LWs is worth the substantial but lesser price in Ds.

I say it is.
Go look at what having a star-packed offense and a bleh defense has gotten TB and Wash. Defense wins championships. I don't understand how you can think we can get by with an AHL caliber defense. Or that Lundqvist would even want to stay with us if we hung him out to dry like that.

iamitter is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 12:14 PM
  #103
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
Go look at what having a star-packed offense and a bleh defense has gotten TB and Wash. Defense wins championships. I don't understand how you can think we can get by with an AHL caliber defense. Or that Lundqvist would even want to stay with us if we hung him out to dry like that.
It's gotten them further in the playoffs than us the last few years.

But I agree with you. Defense is key and we have a good defense, nothing to worry about because Sather believes in building from the net out and has done just that.

Winning in the playoffs is about balance and depth, we have depth. Now we need to get a a balanced offense going, something we should have. A legit top 6 LW would make a big difference, it doesn't have to be a Superstar.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 01:12 PM
  #104
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
IF Hall were being moved it would take something serious.
I'd be willing to overpay in serious if the usual
Richards-Gaborik / Dubi-AA-Cally / Staal / Kreider / Erixon were off the table.

Could
Stepan, Girardi, Sauer McDonagh, Boyle, MDZ and Biron
get us
Hall AND Paajarvi and Kabibulin?

Maybe we throw in our 1st and 3rd and they throw in their 2nd and

Tyler Pitlick...
They would be on the table. That's where any discussion would begin. The Oil would rightfully dismiss your "could" as a non starter.

To think that any organization discussing a Hall like talent with us would not be asking for our very best in return is shear fantasy.

....But that's what this board is for and what can make it fun.

Pizza is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 01:18 PM
  #105
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Longer? Yes. Still not a certainty. That is why no one trades a potentials. Neither EDM or NYR would go for that trade.

Talent has little chance to make Torts team. He cannot handle anyone not named Callahan or Prust.
Coffey would be a defensive liability in 2011 NHL. In 88 Paul was 27 years old. He was drafted 6th overall. We will never see Rangers that high in the draft.
LOL. Way to miss the point. That being that in 1988, Paul Coffey was a proven commodity and you knew what you were getting. At this point, MdZ could be a great player, or he could be Bryan Fogarty. Oh, and if you think that there would not be 30 GMs interested were a 1988 version of Coffey available, I will tell you, you are wrong. There are far greater liablities skating regular shifts in the NHL today who couldn't carry his jock offensively.

SML is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 01:28 PM
  #106
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
Your right it would never come to that, because this is NEVER happening.

And if by some insane set of circumstances it did, Hank would publicly ask for a trade. This is laughable.
This may be the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen. Hall is going nowhere. and even if he was, trading Girardi, McD, Sauer, and MDZ in the same trade without at least 2 D-men coming back is beyond comprehension. And MDZ for Erickson straight up is worse. If Dallas did that the entire front office would be executed at dawn. Geez. Let the season play a little before we start making desparate trades from a position of weakness. LGR!!!

Bardof425* is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 01:36 PM
  #107
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
It's gotten them further in the playoffs than us the last few years.

But I agree with you. Defense is key and we have a good defense, nothing to worry about because Sather believes in building from the net out and has done just that.

Winning in the playoffs is about balance and depth, we have depth. Now we need to get a a balanced offense going, something we should have. A legit top 6 LW would make a big difference, it doesn't have to be a Superstar.
Defense is only one key. Defense alone WILL NOT do it. Last year is proof.

Bold: agree.

Underline: we should have depth. Don't have enough. Must get O going is, you are right, something we SHOULD be able to do. But if there is an opportunity to get top tiered help, even if expensive, we need to do it IF ITS THE RIGHT DEAL.

Agree it doesn't have to be a superstar. But who can we get at what price?
At least this way, we got 3 young Fs with obvious talent.

Offense, especially in a system like what Torts is using, needs people who can keep up the pressure and execute. That's what THESE acquisitions would do.

And again, my detractors, kindly acknowledge the fact there would be WORTHWHILE change on time of possession.

In fact, if Staal-Erixon usually hold the fort for 20+ min, that's a third of the game we dominate with minimum issues of D letting up goals. That leaves 40- min, but we can get by most of the time = winning strategy.
It's not like there is one super elite line and 3 other lines are dog food.
With my improvements, the Fs and the lines would be balanced..

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 01:46 PM
  #108
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
Go look at what having a star-packed offense and a bleh defense has gotten TB and Wash. Defense wins championships. I don't understand how you can think we can get by with an AHL caliber defense. Or that Lundqvist would even want to stay with us if we hung him out to dry like that.
Bold: Having top pair Staal-Erixon is not entirely AHL caliber. You're assuming the worst. You'll have several guys competing for 5 slots who will be able to play same more composed, because they will have less pressure, because the offense I suggest would dominate time of possession several minutes more, which is easier on the Ds.

Underline: Again, disagree. Lundqvist would be happy he can actually win a game if a guy like Ovechkin beats him, because finally our offense wouldn't be so *&(*)(*34 impotent. And while he would have to be fully on his toes (as he is usually now) when we are on defense, the fact that he'd get a respite with some action in the other end is only something logically he'd support and embrace.

Yield to the logic of the situation.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 01:55 PM
  #109
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
They would be on the table. That's where any discussion would begin. The Oil would rightfully dismiss your "could" as a non starter.

To think that any organization discussing a Hall like talent with us would not be asking for our very best in return is shear fantasy.

....But that's what this board is for and what can make it fun.
This is a fair question, but I disagree.
There is more than enough to the Oil D and G to justify both Hall and Paajarvi, plus they wanna get rid of Khabibulin, so its a big favor.
Then on top of that their getting Boyle and his 20+ g which somewhat offsets that loss a little, and more importantly, Stepan, who could do another 20, + a few more this time.

Stepan is not the specimen or as developed as Anisimov, but he is not chopped liver either. It is fair value, especially if picks may wind up being involved in Oiler favor.

This is a tough week schedule wise.
I'll be happy to debate this in more detail later, perhaps as early as next week.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 01:57 PM
  #110
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Disagree.
He might complain he'd have LESS shots to stop,
Yes. Vtank doing his impression of Girardi on shotblocking is the amateur replacing the champion. And we are missing substantial D, prior to my suggestions to replace. but you must admit with this new sustained offense, 3 potent lines and a checking line that is also dangerous enough to surprise, the time of possession goes up for us, and shots that need be blocked go down.

Yes, when the other side gets in they could be more deadly, but they will be in our end a whole lot less. It is a valid counterposition, though I understand how the Dan Girardi mancrush society would rather shoot it down, and waste Hank's prime with the status quo.
The problem here is that you think Vtank, or any of our other unproven dmen, can replace what Girardi gives us. Girardi is a 1st pair dman on our team. He logged 30+ minutes in both games so far while playing against the other teams' best players. And in case you haven't noticed, Staal is out and we don't know when he'll be back.

The fact that you (continually) suggest that we should trade him is frightening enough, but that you added Sauer, McD and MDZ (and Stepan and Boyle) into the deal is beyond laughable. Rookies, especially rookies who haven't proven they are ready for the NHL, do not come up and play 20+ minutes a night, let alone 30+.

In short, your proposal was as bad as any of seen on this forum or any other.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 02:13 PM
  #111
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
It's gotten them further in the playoffs than us the last few years.

But I agree with you. Defense is key and we have a good defense, nothing to worry about because Sather believes in building from the net out and has done just that.

Winning in the playoffs is about balance and depth, we have depth. Now we need to get a a balanced offense going, something we should have. A legit top 6 LW would make a big difference, it doesn't have to be a Superstar.
Exactly. We need 1 more guy who can put the puck in the net. If he can do that 25 to 30 times, that would be great.

broadwayblue is online now  
Old
10-11-2011, 02:22 PM
  #112
Jumbo*
TARGET: ACQUIRED
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16,720
vCash: 500
Thats what we need. Less defensemen on the team.

Jumbo* is offline  
Old
10-11-2011, 03:03 PM
  #113
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
The problem here is that you think Vtank, or any of our other unproven dmen, can replace what Girardi gives us. Girardi is a 1st pair dman on our team. He logged 30+ minutes in both games so far while playing against the other teams' best players. And in case you haven't noticed, Staal is out and we don't know when he'll be back.

The fact that you (continually) suggest that we should trade him is frightening enough, but that you added Sauer, McD and MDZ (and Stepan and Boyle) into the deal is beyond laughable. Rookies, especially rookies who haven't proven they are ready for the NHL, do not come up and play 20+ minutes a night, let alone 30+.

In short, your proposal was as bad as any of seen on this forum or any other.
I appreciate your otherwise accurate, honest and constructive criticism.

However, I am obliged to point out that:
(1) I am not saying exactly that "Vtank, or any of our other unproven dmen, can replace what Girardi gives us." in any way to suggest that what is coming in is the equal or improvement of what we are losing.

What I am saying is IF you get enough gain going the other way, the issue is not if you have to live without Girardi and the guys you've lost. The issue is can you live with the reduced production their replacements give you.

Now that is a lot to give up, but
(2) You are completely ignoring what we are getting in return, and all the benefit thereto. Your criticism is thus not entirely accurate. It would be as if I said, let's ship these guys off to ___________ (the moon) AND NOT GET ANYTHING IN RETURN.

A year ago, I said give our D kids a chance. I was proven right.
They needed a season to improve further, but they made me look good by handling it well enough along the way.

If we get all that offense to LW, etc., that will make a HUGE difference. We will actually maintain pressure. Dominate time of possession. Score on the power play!!

And we will still have strong shut down with our first pair [Staal-Erixon]

You are inferring that guys like Vtank, Kundratek, etc., will be woefully outclassed, worse than Redden his last year playing on each and every shift. I resent that inference.

If our top shut down pair can provide stability and hold the fort where really needed against the other teams' best, these guys should do ADEQUATELY vs. the comp. Adequate is not good enough for an extended time, or in a vacuum, but with this offense, and the reasonable likelihood they can get 2nd or 3rd pair help (again, they don't need first pair help), then it is more than do-able.

They can get a Gunnarrsson for more than what they want to pay but a price we can live with.
They can reach out to a team like the Black Hawks and, now that your F is settled, you can look at something around Christian Thomas for a D prospect, of which they have multiple.
And McIlrath might be an end of year call up, no?

So please look this over with fresh eyes and address my points raised.
After the impotence shown in last year's playoffs and to date, I'm willing to take this risk, and for those who disagree, we have to agree to disagree.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 03:02 AM
  #114
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
I appreciate your otherwise accurate, honest and constructive criticism.

However, I am obliged to point out that:
(1) I am not saying exactly that "Vtank, or any of our other unproven dmen, can replace what Girardi gives us." in any way to suggest that what is coming in is the equal or improvement of what we are losing.

What I am saying is IF you get enough gain going the other way, the issue is not if you have to live without Girardi and the guys you've lost. The issue is can you live with the reduced production their replacements give you.

Now that is a lot to give up, but
(2) You are completely ignoring what we are getting in return, and all the benefit thereto. Your criticism is thus not entirely accurate. It would be as if I said, let's ship these guys off to ___________ (the moon) AND NOT GET ANYTHING IN RETURN.

A year ago, I said give our D kids a chance. I was proven right.
They needed a season to improve further, but they made me look good by handling it well enough along the way.

If we get all that offense to LW, etc., that will make a HUGE difference. We will actually maintain pressure. Dominate time of possession. Score on the power play!!

And we will still have strong shut down with our first pair [Staal-Erixon]

You are inferring that guys like Vtank, Kundratek, etc., will be woefully outclassed, worse than Redden his last year playing on each and every shift. I resent that inference.

If our top shut down pair can provide stability and hold the fort where really needed against the other teams' best, these guys should do ADEQUATELY vs. the comp. Adequate is not good enough for an extended time, or in a vacuum, but with this offense, and the reasonable likelihood they can get 2nd or 3rd pair help (again, they don't need first pair help), then it is more than do-able.

They can get a Gunnarrsson for more than what they want to pay but a price we can live with.
They can reach out to a team like the Black Hawks and, now that your F is settled, you can look at something around Christian Thomas for a D prospect, of which they have multiple.
And McIlrath might be an end of year call up, no?

So please look this over with fresh eyes and address my points raised.
After the impotence shown in last year's playoffs and to date, I'm willing to take this risk, and for those who disagree, we have to agree to disagree.
Listen me and you have gone at it over the past few months because every single proposal you put out there is, well quite honestly, unfathomable.

But this is me just trying to be civil with you here. Really trying to make you understand the reality of this. Yes Hall, Pajaarvi; they're solid players and yes they make our offense a world better. HOWEVER, you just cant put unproven defenseman out there on NHL ice and expect them to do well.

You say you're NOT expecting anyone to fill McD, Sauer, Girardi's shoes but you're basically implying that you honestly feel they will be a serviceable replacement and we will be able to get by with them when we absolutely will not. Theres just no way, I'm sorry. That's the reality of it. They are not ready. If they were they would've beaten out a Michael Del Zotto who still needs a lot of work on his defensive game, but yet he made the team over them. You cant just throw **** at the board and see what sticks, hoping something does. That's not how you build a contender or simply a competent team in the NHL. There is NO GAIN to this deal. The offensive acquisition does not offset the holes we'd have on defense.

You mention a guy like Gunnarrson from Toronto. First off, can we establish this was a RUMOR. That's all it was. It was as credible as eklund's rumors. There was no reputable source that said this was true. So what are you basing YOUR ASSUMPTIONS off of? On top of that how much more do you want to sacrifice in a trade after you complete the edmonton trade? So basically we're going to deal a bunch of assets just so we can add sexy names like Hall and Pajaarvi, meanwhile opening gigantic holes on our defense. Thus now since we've pushed the threshold this far we have to now make another trade to fix the holes on defense, depleting our entire farm system. It just absolutely does not make sense. You're making a trade with edmonton for the sake of making a trade. Yes they're good players but it is not an organizational need plus it is not a feasible option.

It hurts the organization more than it helps and thats the bottom line. If this can not be anymore clear in an explanation to why your trade proposal, in the nicest way possible for me to say it to you without tearing you apart as usual, JUST WONT WORK.

And I have no idea where you're getting the blackhawks from as trading partners. Again just another ASSUMPTION by YOU that there's going to be some team out there ready to "help" us out. After we go out and steal Erixon from CGY, and sign the big ticket free agent Richards....if we go out and make a deal like this with edmonton and then turn around to try and make another deal to fix the holes on defense; you can bet your ass no team is making a deal with Sather unless they are swindling him. No one is going to feel bad for the Rangers. The fact that we would be so vulnerable and desperate for defense, the asking price in ANY deal would be overpayment.

I'm really not trying to be harsh but it's the same time with everyone of your proposals, they deplete our system and our depth. It's as if you want the sexy name but you dont see the ramifications/consequences from it in other areas of the organization.

RGY is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 03:33 AM
  #115
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Hmm--Staal is out.

Girardi, McDonagh, Sauer and Del Zotto traded.

Erixon/Woywitka--1st pair.
Bell/Eminger-2nd pair.
Bickel/Valentenko/Kundratek/--5-7.

How does that look?

Can we fit Redden's salary in? Probably not. McIlrath's in juniors.

Sorry Connecticut AHL team--Redden, Nightingale, Parlett, Niemi, Baldwin and whoever. We had to give to get.
Goalies do your best.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 08:05 AM
  #116
Ke11y96
Registered User
 
Ke11y96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
A legit top 6 LW would make a big difference, it doesn't have to be a Superstar.
My top two choices for us to go acquire would be Loui Eriksson and David Booth. Eriksson for obvious reasons and Booth can shoot the puck and knows how to get open he always finds ways to get 5 shots or more a game, and I think in Florida due to their signings he got bumped down to 2nd line, I would think for the right deal Florida would move him..

Ke11y96 is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 09:28 AM
  #117
DrSutton*
Given Up
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ke11y96 View Post
My top two choices for us to go acquire would be Loui Eriksson and David Booth. Eriksson for obvious reasons and Booth can shoot the puck and knows how to get open he always finds ways to get 5 shots or more a game, and I think in Florida due to their signings he got bumped down to 2nd line, I would think for the right deal Florida would move him..
Was thinking about booth myself last night. I like Weiss still as well. All depends on what FLA is able to accomplish this season. Another year of missing the playoffs and I think a guy like Weiss becomes available. His family is good friends with Adam Graves, wears number 9 in honor of him. Stick him on the LW of the top line.
Like I said though, all depends on what Florida does this season. If they flame out and get another top 10 pick in this good draft, they may be more willing to deal him, especially with Huberdeau waiting in the wings.

But good point on Booth, his being pushed to the 2nd line could make him available. I worry about injuries though.

DrSutton* is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 10:49 AM
  #118
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
Listen me and you have gone at it over the past few months because every single proposal you put out there is, well quite honestly, unfathomable.

But this is me just trying to be civil with you here. Really trying to make you understand the reality of this. Yes Hall, Pajaarvi; they're solid players and yes they make our offense a world better. HOWEVER, you just cant put unproven defenseman out there on NHL ice and expect them to do well.

You say you're NOT expecting anyone to fill McD, Sauer, Girardi's shoes but you're basically implying that you honestly feel they will be a serviceable replacement and we will be able to get by with them when we absolutely will not. Theres just no way, I'm sorry. That's the reality of it. They are not ready. If they were they would've beaten out a Michael Del Zotto who still needs a lot of work on his defensive game, but yet he made the team over them. You cant just throw **** at the board and see what sticks, hoping something does. That's not how you build a contender or simply a competent team in the NHL. There is NO GAIN to this deal. The offensive acquisition does not offset the holes we'd have on defense.

You mention a guy like Gunnarrson from Toronto. First off, can we establish this was a RUMOR. That's all it was. It was as credible as eklund's rumors. There was no reputable source that said this was true. So what are you basing YOUR ASSUMPTIONS off of? On top of that how much more do you want to sacrifice in a trade after you complete the edmonton trade? So basically we're going to deal a bunch of assets just so we can add sexy names like Hall and Pajaarvi, meanwhile opening gigantic holes on our defense. Thus now since we've pushed the threshold this far we have to now make another trade to fix the holes on defense, depleting our entire farm system. It just absolutely does not make sense. You're making a trade with edmonton for the sake of making a trade. Yes they're good players but it is not an organizational need plus it is not a feasible option.

It hurts the organization more than it helps and thats the bottom line. If this can not be anymore clear in an explanation to why your trade proposal, in the nicest way possible for me to say it to you without tearing you apart as usual, JUST WONT WORK.

And I have no idea where you're getting the blackhawks from as trading partners. Again just another ASSUMPTION by YOU that there's going to be some team out there ready to "help" us out. After we go out and steal Erixon from CGY, and sign the big ticket free agent Richards....if we go out and make a deal like this with edmonton and then turn around to try and make another deal to fix the holes on defense; you can bet your ass no team is making a deal with Sather unless they are swindling him. No one is going to feel bad for the Rangers. The fact that we would be so vulnerable and desperate for defense, the asking price in ANY deal would be overpayment.

I'm really not trying to be harsh but it's the same time with everyone of your proposals, they deplete our system and our depth. It's as if you want the sexy name but you dont see the ramifications/consequences from it in other areas of the organization.
I appreciate your civility.
We agree to disagree.

Not all rumors are true. Say Gunnarrson from Toronto is false. The one odd name, the 2012 version of Emminger as a reclamation, any of these would fill one additional spot. The CBH have solidified their situation with Seabrook long term Moved out Campbell and his cap for long term. I understand they have some flexibility and a SMALL NUMBER of extra D prospects. I don't claim to be expert in this area, but believe I'm right on that. It is not preposterous that if there is an advantageous deal to be had they wouldn't consider one of those prospects.

You guys act as if the second of the opening faceoff, our Ds will literally fall flat on their faces, hopelessly outclassed. Sure, a guy like Malkin or Stamkos will give anybody a dressing down, (for which there is Staal-Erixon). But these few aside, I expect our guys to hold the fort ADEQUATELY. It will be a drop of defense and more goals surrendered, but it will be a manageable one.

I strongly disagree with your core premise at the fundamental crux of our disagreement:
"The offensive acquisition does not offset the holes we'd have on defense.".

If any one wants to take a stab at quantifying these subjective conclusions on both sides, feel free.
But I gather these are not just three sexy names.
Clearly, with this firepower, we would have far more control in time of possession than at present. Our power play would be dramatically better.
No less important, while there could be more risk when on defense with other than first pairing (assuming, again, we do not improve that D by trade), we will not only improve on time but at location. The puck will be a whole lot less in our zone than it is now, because our more talented Fs force it longer in both center ice and the opposite (scoring) end.

I'll take the hits and the criticism for the weaknesses of my proposal.
But damn it all to expletive delted hell, please acknowledge FULLY the correct other aspects of this suggestion.

Finally, as to the concern this might be screwing up our farm system, particularly as to any follow up to get those replacment D, let me say this:
my three imports are young guys, so we are mostly trading young bodies for young bodies in the primary deal.

As to anything subsequent, there is a key core I maintained and there are enough left over for follow up or contingency trades.

The core kept includes our Kreider, McIlrath, J.T. Miller, Fasth, McNaught
Given that, and how the Fs on the roster would be well set, I don't consider moving Christian Thomas and others for Ds/d prospects to be a losing proposition. Sure, there may be SOME inclination to swindle Sather, as you suggest. But that is immediately DEFEATED by ... competition.

If 2 teams want Thomas both of course will try to press Sather for a better deal; but at the end of the day, if one does not make an offer at least reasonably attractive, no deal will be made. There is no 'let's screw Sather' movement out there, so the question for another GM is ok, Thomas is available, what are the bids, what can I offer to make the winning bid? Plus, we no longer have the more difficult task of trading Thomas + in a large package with his value as a quarter or so of a Tarasenko. Instead we are trading him relative to a Gunnarson or better.
Christian Thomas + X for Barret Jackman + Y. Much easier, yes?
Is Tutin 2.0 so unthinkable? Come on.

If we did my deal, and then got 2 minimally decent hold the fort Ds like Roszival plus a 3rd in exchange for Thomas, do you see how there are ways we CAN make this work?

Again, young elite or potential elite sniper Fs are EXPENSIVE. {plus I did so w/out giving up our best assets including our more valuable Fs}
Second and third pair Ds --- really we have enough third pair in house we only really need to upgrade to 2 for a 2nd pairing --- not cheap giveaways but not expensive by any means.

Don't want to , just want to say I get what you say, but I disagree, please feel free to re-evaluate with more focus on points raised herein. Expect you will still flame on and oppose, but if we don't agree hope you can at least note the positives the second time around.


Last edited by bernmeister: 10-12-2011 at 11:04 AM. Reason: content clarification
bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 10:57 AM
  #119
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Exactly. We need 1 more guy who can put the puck in the net. If he can do that 25 to 30 times, that would be great.
Say its 1, not 2.
With D being easier than scoring, who do you have in mind for 25 or 30 gs who who can be hadisn't a sexy name superstar?

I was not motivated, my detractors, by whether it was a sexy name.
I thought who are top Fs we can target, what would it take to get them, and then is there any scenario in which a horrible overpayment, but one I could still live with, might actually work.

My assumption is Edmonton won't hand those guys over for equal value, but that is enough to completely give the Oils a genuine defensive identity going forward, deals with certain G issues, gives them some offseting scoring in Boyle and a replacement prospect in Stepan.

Oilers may reject the deal, but can be argued this expedites their rebuild successfully, so they'd do it.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 11:16 AM
  #120
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,076
vCash: 500
i move both del zotto- puck mover they could use and mcilrath- western canada boy, if it means we could bring back one of their young, skilled scoring forwards.

love mps and eberle both.

they have so much young talent, we might be able to pry one of them away.

i stay far away from david booth with his concussion history. hes damaged goods.

offdacrossbar is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 11:40 AM
  #121
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
I appreciate your civility.
We agree to disagree.

Not all rumors are true. Say Gunnarrson from Toronto is false. The one odd name, the 2012 version of Emminger as a reclamation, any of these would fill one additional spot. The CBH have solidified their situation with Seabrook long term Moved out Campbell and his cap for long term. I understand they have some flexibility and a SMALL NUMBER of extra D prospects. I don't claim to be expert in this area, but believe I'm right on that. It is not preposterous that if there is an advantageous deal to be had they wouldn't consider one of those prospects.

You guys act as if the second of the opening faceoff, our Ds will literally fall flat on their faces, hopelessly outclassed. Sure, a guy like Malkin or Stamkos will give anybody a dressing down, (for which there is Staal-Erixon). But these few aside, I expect our guys to hold the fort ADEQUATELY. It will be a drop of defense and more goals surrendered, but it will be a manageable one.

I strongly disagree with your core premise at the fundamental crux of our disagreement:
"The offensive acquisition does not offset the holes we'd have on defense.".

If any one wants to take a stab at quantifying these subjective conclusions on both sides, feel free.
But I gather these are not just three sexy names.
Clearly, with this firepower, we would have far more control in time of possession than at present. Our power play would be dramatically better.
No less important, while there could be more risk when on defense with other than first pairing (assuming, again, we do not improve that D by trade), we will not only improve on time but at location. The puck will be a whole lot less in our zone than it is now, because our more talented Fs force it longer in both center ice and the opposite (scoring) end.

I'll take the hits and the criticism for the weaknesses of my proposal.
But damn it all to expletive delted hell, please acknowledge FULLY the correct other aspects of this suggestion.

Finally, as to the concern this might be screwing up our farm system, particularly as to any follow up to get those replacment D, let me say this:
my three imports are young guys, so we are mostly trading young bodies for young bodies in the primary deal.

As to anything subsequent, there is a key core I maintained and there are enough left over for follow up or contingency trades.

The core kept includes our Kreider, McIlrath, J.T. Miller, Fasth, McNaught
Given that, and how the Fs on the roster would be well set, I don't consider moving Christian Thomas and others for Ds/d prospects to be a losing proposition. Sure, there may be SOME inclination to swindle Sather, as you suggest. But that is immediately DEFEATED by ... competition.

If 2 teams want Thomas both of course will try to press Sather for a better deal; but at the end of the day, if one does not make an offer at least reasonably attractive, no deal will be made. There is no 'let's screw Sather' movement out there, so the question for another GM is ok, Thomas is available, what are the bids, what can I offer to make the winning bid? Plus, we no longer have the more difficult task of trading Thomas + in a large package with his value as a quarter or so of a Tarasenko. Instead we are trading him relative to a Gunnarson or better.
Christian Thomas + X for Barret Jackman + Y. Much easier, yes?
Is Tutin 2.0 so unthinkable? Come on.

If we did my deal, and then got 2 minimally decent hold the fort Ds like Roszival plus a 3rd in exchange for Thomas, do you see how there are ways we CAN make this work?

Again, young elite or potential elite sniper Fs are EXPENSIVE. {plus I did so w/out giving up our best assets including our more valuable Fs}
Second and third pair Ds --- really we have enough third pair in house we only really need to upgrade to 2 for a 2nd pairing --- not cheap giveaways but not expensive by any means.

Don't want to , just want to say I get what you say, but I disagree, please feel free to re-evaluate with more focus on points raised herein. Expect you will still flame on and oppose, but if we don't agree hope you can at least note the positives the second time around.
This is why your opinion on this board means nothing. I gave you a valid and adequate response to your proposal as to why it wont work and you consider it flaming? Your a clown bernmeister. You continue to mention the blackhawks just because they have a couple extra D laying around or so you think.

And its just laughable, LAUGHABLE, you expect Staal-Erixon to be on the ice EVERY time the opposing teams best players are on the ice. What about when they're on the road and the home team has last change on a faceoff in our zone? What about an icing where guys like bickel, bell, vtank, kundratek are stuck on the ice. Not to mention that 1) Erixon still needs to develop a lot and clearly Torts thinks so which is why he was sent down, only to be recalled because of injuries. And 2) STAAL ISNT EVEN HEALTHY RIGHT NOW! So when are we making this trade? At the deadline? Halfway through the season when Staal is JUST getting back in the flow of things? That's when we will decide to gut our defense. This is insanity beyond belief. NO those no-name unproven defenseman will not "hold down the fort adequately." What I think you should do is put that to a poll and ask the entire board if the rangers fans here think they would, I can tell you which way the voting would go if you cant get a clear idea of what I'm getting at.

And subjective conclusions? Subjective? How? It's just flat out reality. It's common sense. You make it seem like it's ok to "surrender more goals." It's not. There are too many talented forwards in the NHL, it will be a lot more surrendered goals than you think and Henrik will not be able to stand on his head like you seem to think he would.

If you really think puck possession is going to increase that much from adding two more talented forwards than you are more delusional than i thought. I can promise you it wouldnt be much. We wouldnt be pinning teams in their defensive end. It just wont happen. Once that puck is turned over and the opposing team is on the counter attack we will be screwed. There are too many good teams in the Eastern conference with offensive talent that we wont be able to just play keep away with the puck. Even a team like Florida would kill us because their offensive unit as a lot of talent.

The core of our prospects does not include McNaught. And then your moving Thomas when he is closer to the NHL than Miller and Fasth. And teams are not going to just ask for Thomas. First off they will probably want a player off our NHL roster, and then want Thomas and/or Miller/Kreider. An unproven Thomas, no matter how talented he is, is not enough for a team to deal a quality defender to us. Even so last time I checked guys like Seabrook, Burns, or whoever (which is what you would deal Thomas for) are not available. So now we're going to have to sell ourselves short and deal one of our best and most talented forward prospects for an average defender because thats all that is available and thats what the asking price will be.

In fact I hadnt gotten down to the other paragraph. But you play right into what I'm saying. WE think Thomas is awesome. Other teams may feel he is great BUT THERE IS NO WAY two GMs will start bidding against themselves to get an unproven prospect. This is why you are so far off. And then, just like I said, you suggest we trade for an AVERAGE defender such as Barret Jackman! We are trading a prized prospect for a guy who has not been the same from when he first broke into the league. He is nothing special and yet this is what we get for putting ourselves in a vulnerable position. And then you suggest Rosie and a 3rd for Thomas??? HAHAHA. This is quite unbelievable. So the guy we traded for a project like Wolski, we are now trying to reacquire with one of our top 3 best prospects imo; a kid who put up 60+ goals in the OHL last year. I'm just shaking my head.

You say teams arent going to try and "screw" Sather. It's not about screwing him, its a BUSINESS. It's called being a smart GM. No GM is going to settle for anything less than a deal they win a landslide because sather would be nothing BUT vulnerable and desperate with the defense you propose to go with.

Young elite forwards are expensive, and they are going to be more expensive than you are planning for. Because once you gut the defense your going to have to make another trade in a VULNERABLE position where you then gut your farm system. We dont have enough "3rd pair ds in the house" you just think we do. Those guys are barely NHL defenseman that are in the minors so dont act like they are regulars and would be no problem. And regardless the 2nd pair wouldnt just be some quick fix through a trade.

And edmonton is going to want top prospects back, not just 3 proven NHL defenseman so theres another reality check. So your trading pieces from the farm in two trades. And if you decide to hold of on a trade for a defenseman then your leaving CT Whale gutted and weak. Losing every game is a real good atmosphere of development for guys like Bourque and Hagelin.

Bottom line is every time a RUMOR slips out onto these boards bernmeister, you jump all over it and go buck wild with your special trade proposals. You need to slow down and relax. If your going to post them then you better be prepared to receive the brunt of severe opposition. I'm sorry I'm not gona play nice like kids in a schoolyard by not sugarcoating anything.

RGY is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 11:41 AM
  #122
Ke11y96
Registered User
 
Ke11y96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
i move both del zotto- puck mover they could use and mcilrath- western canada boy, if it means we could bring back one of their young, skilled scoring forwards.

love mps and eberle both.

they have so much young talent, we might be able to pry one of them away.

i stay far away from david booth with his concussion history. hes damaged goods.
He may be damaged goods but the guy still plays a high tempo game, a north south game, and IMO is incredible about finding ways to get his shot off. Last year he pounded 280 shots out and in regards to that among left wingers it was 3rd only behind Zetterberg and Ovechkin.

So just remember this team needs guys that get pucks to the net and David Booth does that tremendously well...

Ke11y96 is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 02:02 PM
  #123
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
This is why your opinion on this board means nothing. I gave you a valid and adequate response to your proposal as to why it wont work and you consider it flaming? Your a clown bernmeister. You continue to mention the blackhawks just because they have a couple extra D laying around or so you think.

And its just laughable, LAUGHABLE, you expect Staal-Erixon to be on the ice EVERY time the opposing teams best players are on the ice. What about when they're on the road and the home team has last change on a faceoff in our zone? What about an icing where guys like bickel, bell, vtank, kundratek are stuck on the ice. Not to mention that 1) Erixon still needs to develop a lot and clearly Torts thinks so which is why he was sent down, only to be recalled because of injuries. And 2) STAAL ISNT EVEN HEALTHY RIGHT NOW! So when are we making this trade? At the deadline? Halfway through the season when Staal is JUST getting back in the flow of things? That's when we will decide to gut our defense. This is insanity beyond belief. NO those no-name unproven defenseman will not "hold down the fort adequately." What I think you should do is put that to a poll and ask the entire board if the rangers fans here think they would, I can tell you which way the voting would go if you cant get a clear idea of what I'm getting at.

And subjective conclusions? Subjective? How? It's just flat out reality. It's common sense. You make it seem like it's ok to "surrender more goals." It's not. There are too many talented forwards in the NHL, it will be a lot more surrendered goals than you think and Henrik will not be able to stand on his head like you seem to think he would.

If you really think puck possession is going to increase that much from adding two more talented forwards than you are more delusional than i thought. I can promise you it wouldnt be much. We wouldnt be pinning teams in their defensive end. It just wont happen. Once that puck is turned over and the opposing team is on the counter attack we will be screwed. There are too many good teams in the Eastern conference with offensive talent that we wont be able to just play keep away with the puck. Even a team like Florida would kill us because their offensive unit as a lot of talent.

The core of our prospects does not include McNaught. And then your moving Thomas when he is closer to the NHL than Miller and Fasth. And teams are not going to just ask for Thomas. First off they will probably want a player off our NHL roster, and then want Thomas and/or Miller/Kreider. An unproven Thomas, no matter how talented he is, is not enough for a team to deal a quality defender to us. Even so last time I checked guys like Seabrook, Burns, or whoever (which is what you would deal Thomas for) are not available. So now we're going to have to sell ourselves short and deal one of our best and most talented forward prospects for an average defender because thats all that is available and thats what the asking price will be.

In fact I hadnt gotten down to the other paragraph. But you play right into what I'm saying. WE think Thomas is awesome. Other teams may feel he is great BUT THERE IS NO WAY two GMs will start bidding against themselves to get an unproven prospect. This is why you are so far off. And then, just like I said, you suggest we trade for an AVERAGE defender such as Barret Jackman! We are trading a prized prospect for a guy who has not been the same from when he first broke into the league. He is nothing special and yet this is what we get for putting ourselves in a vulnerable position. And then you suggest Rosie and a 3rd for Thomas??? HAHAHA. This is quite unbelievable. So the guy we traded for a project like Wolski, we are now trying to reacquire with one of our top 3 best prospects imo; a kid who put up 60+ goals in the OHL last year. I'm just shaking my head.

You say teams arent going to try and "screw" Sather. It's not about screwing him, its a BUSINESS. It's called being a smart GM. No GM is going to settle for anything less than a deal they win a landslide because sather would be nothing BUT vulnerable and desperate with the defense you propose to go with.

Young elite forwards are expensive, and they are going to be more expensive than you are planning for. Because once you gut the defense your going to have to make another trade in a VULNERABLE position where you then gut your farm system. We dont have enough "3rd pair ds in the house" you just think we do. Those guys are barely NHL defenseman that are in the minors so dont act like they are regulars and would be no problem. And regardless the 2nd pair wouldnt just be some quick fix through a trade.

And edmonton is going to want top prospects back, not just 3 proven NHL defenseman so theres another reality check. So your trading pieces from the farm in two trades. And if you decide to hold of on a trade for a defenseman then your leaving CT Whale gutted and weak. Losing every game is a real good atmosphere of development for guys like Bourque and Hagelin.

Bottom line is every time a RUMOR slips out onto these boards bernmeister, you jump all over it and go buck wild with your special trade proposals. You need to slow down and relax. If your going to post them then you better be prepared to receive the brunt of severe opposition. I'm sorry I'm not gona play nice like kids in a schoolyard by not sugarcoating anything.
Not surprisingly I disagree with much of what you say.
I reserve the right to comment more fully later (I'm busy with taxes).

I will for now just say specifically I reject your premise: "No GM is going to settle for anything less than a deal they win a landslide".

You are another GM. You have your own needs, etc.; if you can make a profit on a deal, you do, if it is enough profit to be worthwhile. Your stated theory is nobody does any business unless they can screw the other guy over. I'm not saying that doesn't happen in isolated situations, and that you don't TRY to get the best deal you can, regardless of what happens to the other side (see Tim Erixon). However, unless we ask for a top flight elite D who commands a premium (which we would not be doing but instead seeking second pairing #3/4 guys), if you want a Christian Thomas, you ARE competing, as I said which you ignored, with the other GMs to obtain him. That is the market price. You can try to slightly lowball, or try to slightly overpay, but that market is what sets the price..... NOT an attitude of "I only want to acquire Thomas IF I can stick it to Slats/Rangers by getting landslide terms or not at all". If someone outbids you, you put up or shut up.

My premise could be defeated if there was extensive enough collusion to defeat the competition; however, it is assumed that a Thomas is worth picking up on the right REASONABLE market price, without overpayment, so you CAN get something for him. The self interest to do this should defeat the possibility of collusion.

Till next time...

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 02:14 PM
  #124
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
The Rangers couldn't come up with 2 players that Edmonton would take in exchange for Hall.
Henke & Gabby and Edmonton doesn't even hesitate.

It immediate takes Edmonton from a lottery team to a playoff team.

vipernsx is offline  
Old
10-12-2011, 03:58 PM
  #125
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Not surprisingly I disagree with much of what you say.
I reserve the right to comment more fully later (I'm busy with taxes).

I will for now just say specifically I reject your premise: "No GM is going to settle for anything less than a deal they win a landslide".

You are another GM. You have your own needs, etc.; if you can make a profit on a deal, you do, if it is enough profit to be worthwhile. Your stated theory is nobody does any business unless they can screw the other guy over. I'm not saying that doesn't happen in isolated situations, and that you don't TRY to get the best deal you can, regardless of what happens to the other side (see Tim Erixon). However, unless we ask for a top flight elite D who commands a premium (which we would not be doing but instead seeking second pairing #3/4 guys), if you want a Christian Thomas, you ARE competing, as I said which you ignored, with the other GMs to obtain him. That is the market price. You can try to slightly lowball, or try to slightly overpay, but that market is what sets the price..... NOT an attitude of "I only want to acquire Thomas IF I can stick it to Slats/Rangers by getting landslide terms or not at all". If someone outbids you, you put up or shut up.

My premise could be defeated if there was extensive enough collusion to defeat the competition; however, it is assumed that a Thomas is worth picking up on the right REASONABLE market price, without overpayment, so you CAN get something for him. The self interest to do this should defeat the possibility of collusion.

Till next time...
Okay you say you disagree and all you can respond with is that YOU still THINK that a GM wont try and swindle a vulnerable sather. You dont think other GMs have paid attention to the deals Sather has made over the years? The deals he made to get out from underneath contracts. How badly he killed Gainey in the MTL trade. How he committed highway robbery in that trade and then again with the Erixon deal. I dont want to hear this BS about respect. Sather would be vulnerable and no GM is going to sit there and settle for a fair deal; they dont have to because they have what is called LEVERAGE.

And you say it yourself, all your doing is ASSUMING. Your assuming teams want Christian Thomas. Based on what? He has scored not a single point in the NHL. Teams may have interest because of his talent but no GM is going to get into a bidding war over a PROSPECT that hasnt played a single NHL minute. This is what continually slips your mind.

Oh and thank you for not responding to the flaws i pointed out in your theories, such as the defense, the puck possession, mcnaught being a top prospect, goals being surrendered would be a huge problem, your absolutely ridiculous proposals that we basically throw Thomas for scraps such as Jackman or Rosie.

Just stop your embarrassing yourself. Just admit your proposal is extremely, extremely flawed and naive and that will be that.

RGY 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 11:20 PM.

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.