HFBoards

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

Rangers still need first line center

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-27-2006, 10:58 AM
  #26
Bacchus
Registered User
 
Bacchus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dickes B
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Sundin would cost alot. How about Tucker for Marcel Hossa, and the rights to Rachunek?
Nah, throw in Poti!


Bacchus is offline  
Old
01-27-2006, 11:01 AM
  #27
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
If I were the Caps I actually would.
Amend that to "if you were a Ranger fan running the Caps, you would". There is no way that a team with a lottery pick is trading down from the top 5 to the bottom 3rd range. Not without more compensation.

"Chances are a team like the Caps sorely lack depth, and I'm basing this deal on the fact that Immonen hasn't busted like you act."

Please point out where I stated that. My guess is that you will be looking for such a statement for a good long time.

"You also have to figure that it is totally possible they'll get one of their top players on the list; last year they took Pokulok at 14 so its all a matter of who they got where."

There is a rather big difference between that and willingly passing on a Staal, Mueller, Toews or Johnson.

"If I'm the Caps and I can get surround Ovechkin with immediate, young talent who is somewhat proven on the AHL level, pick up another top 60 pick, and add another offensively gifted center to the prospect pool, but move down to the 20's, I do it."

And if I'm the Caps and I have a chance to pair Ovechin on the top line with Staal for the next decade, I do that. Or land Johnson to be the #1 defenseman for the next 15 years.

"So what you're saying is Immonen is not worthy ever of a Rangers second line Center spot?"

Again, please point out where I stated that. I believe tha for the last 3 months, I have been beating the drum for Immonen to play instead of Rucchin. However, that does not mean that him and a first rounder is suddenly enough to get a lottery pick.

"If that trade is as underwhelming as you make it seem, just get rid of Immonen now for a 3rd round pick."

Whatever for?

"I based the deal on Immonen, his readiness, his production, and worth to our team. If he is thought of as a good bet to center atleast the second line for us, what makes this trade so bad for WSH? "

Becuase his value does not come close to that of a potential franchise top center of #1 defenseman.

" If WSH is convinced he is a legitimate player, who wouldn't give up 15 spots in the draft for an NHL player +?"

Sure, if they are. But I would rather doubt that they would be. And for all the reasons already stated. Sorry to rain on your parade.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-27-2006, 11:23 AM
  #28
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,112
vCash: 500
Unless a guy like Weight...

is available for a flyer, then I wouldn't do any trades. This team may need a #1 centerman, but I think it will be able to get by with Nylander-Rucchin-Betts-Moore. Maybe that's not a Stanley Cup winning combo, but goaltending and wingers offset any weaknesses in the top two (and the bottom two offset some weaknesses in the top two), and further, it may not be worth the price. When Betts returns, I'd guess Straka moves back to wing, and perhaps Rucinsky goes to the third line to see if he works out and Hossa, Nieminen and Hollweg will fight it out on a fourth line, until the organizations decides who from Rucinsky, Rucchin [which is unlikely unless a centerman comes in return, or a centerman is called up in the near future for a 'tryout'], Hossa or Nieminen gets moved.

Fletch is offline  
Old
01-27-2006, 11:51 AM
  #29
GRETZKY_99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 377
vCash: 500
Put Nylander back on first line, centering Jagr and Prucha...

Now ya got a good first line... Nylander had good chemistry with Jagr at the begining of the season before lines got messed up and scoring went down!

GRETZKY_99 is offline  
Old
01-27-2006, 09:49 PM
  #30
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
"If I'm the Caps and I can get surround Ovechkin with immediate, young talent who is somewhat proven on the AHL level, pick up another top 60 pick, and add another offensively gifted center to the prospect pool, but move down to the 20's, I do it."

And if I'm the Caps and I have a chance to pair Ovechin on the top line with Staal for the next decade, I do that. Or land Johnson to be the #1 defenseman for the next 15 years.

Sure, if they are. But I would rather doubt that they would be. And for all the reasons already stated. Sorry to rain on your parade.
Well, you'll have to wait a good 2-3 years for Staal to come through. He's nowhere near ready. (I do think he's top 3 in the draft, just he's extremely raw right now)

Don't pump yourself up too much man. Unless you can convince me you're George McPhee you haven't rained on my parade at all. Its all value and that's what makes trades objectable.

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
01-27-2006, 10:06 PM
  #31
GarretJoseph
Registered User
 
GarretJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,554
vCash: 500
Instead of a deal with the Caps, why not try and raid the Penguins... I mean, do they really need another STAR blue chip prospect? COME ON!! they are gettin greedy on us.

In 3-5 years, does anybody see another team matching the penguins?

I don't.

GarretJoseph is offline  
Old
01-27-2006, 10:08 PM
  #32
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Caps waive Cassels, should the Rangers take a chance? http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...27_171138_6660

At 1.8 this year id do it. He is a playmaking centre that can help our pp.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
01-27-2006, 11:08 PM
  #33
filthy#20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Caps waive Cassels, should the Rangers take a chance? http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...27_171138_6660

At 1.8 this year id do it. He is a playmaking centre that can help our pp.
most ridculous thing ive heard...he is a hack

filthy#20 is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 08:41 AM
  #34
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Well, you'll have to wait a good 2-3 years for Staal to come through. He's nowhere near ready. (I do think he's top 3 in the draft, just he's extremely raw right now)
Ok, he is not top 3. But he is top 5. And frankly who cares about waiting 2-3 years for him? It's not like they are going to be ready to compete before then.

"Its all value and that's what makes trades objectable."

That's right, it is. And you have to give a lot more than you are willing to, in order to land a lottery pick.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 09:58 AM
  #35
Noonan25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country:
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Brad Richards is the perfect guy to be our front liner next year

Noonan25 is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 10:35 AM
  #36
Nacho
Special
 
Nacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Greenland
Posts: 2,012
vCash: 500
What's wrong with Nylander as the "#1 C" then? He has the same amount of points as Jagr in the last 10 games, and he hasn't even been playing on the Jagr line that much of late...

Nacho is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 12:07 PM
  #37
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Ok, he is not top 3. But he is top 5. And frankly who cares about waiting 2-3 years for him? It's not like they are going to be ready to compete before then.

"Its all value and that's what makes trades objectable."

That's right, it is. And you have to give a lot more than you are willing to, in order to land a lottery pick.
I'm going to borrow from Edge here. He mentioned something along these lines, and I can't get it out of my head. This also relates to the back and forth you and I had in another thread True. I am not saying I agree with this. Not sure how I feel about it right now, but here goes.

Bottom line: Rangers move up to a top three pick this summer. They trade Montoya along with one or more prospects we have.

Here is the "theory". Lundqvist continues his excellent play, further solidifying his #1 status. Ranger management sees this and an opportunity to draft the #1 line center they have been looking for. I'm thinking they want Staal, and not just for reasons that are very obvious. I remember either Renney or Maloney directly addressing the fact that specifically what the Rangers needed were kids who drove the net non-stop. They also said this was very hard to find, but when they found it they would draft it or otherwise seek to acquire it. Check out the Staal videos here:

http://www.petesvideos.com/

From what I can see, the kid fits the bill very nicely. The other aspect that the Rangers seem to focus heavily on is character. Assuming Jordon is cut from the same cloth as his brother, that angle is covered. Then there is the brother act angle. Maloney may think back to how well that played when he and his brother were Rangers.

Is this a straight up deal? Maybe, but if not the Rangers still want to keep their #1 pick. I'm thinking they might dangle any one of a number of centers they have in the system: Immonen, Helminen, Pyatt, Dupont, Russel, Ryan, Dubinsky, Roche, Graham, Olver, etc. Well maybe not Immonen. He's pretty close to playing at MSG, but you never know.

True, I think what you said about draft day is essentially dead on. The Rangers will at least attempt to move up. Might this be a way to do it. I'm just throwing stuff against the wall.

Pizza is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 12:44 PM
  #38
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza
I'm going to borrow from Edge here. He mentioned something along these lines, and I can't get it out of my head. This also relates to the back and forth you and I had in another thread True. I am not saying I agree with this. Not sure how I feel about it right now, but here goes.

Bottom line: Rangers move up to a top three pick this summer. They trade Montoya along with one or more prospects we have.
That is different that what Balej is suggesting By inlcuding Montoya you change the dynamics of the trade. Balej was suggesting that our #1, a #2 & Immonen would be enough to move up to a lottery pick. IMO, that is not enough. However, include Montoya in a proposed deal, and it may be enough.
However, I keep going back to I do not want to trade Montoya, unless it is for very special circumstances. I do not know if even a prospect like Staal is enough to make me want to do such a deal.
Again, the organization will be kicking themselves for years after discovering that they traded the next Roy and kept the next Cujo. Think the Isles want Luongo back, as opposed to Ricky D?

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 03:43 PM
  #39
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,918
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=True Blue]That is different that what Balej is suggesting By inlcuding Montoya you change the dynamics of the trade. Balej was suggesting that our #1, a #2 & Immonen would be enough to move up to a lottery pick. IMO, that is not enough. However, include Montoya in a proposed deal, and it may be enough.
However, I keep going back to I do not want to trade Montoya, unless it is for very special circumstances. I do not know if even a prospect like Staal is enough to make me want to do such a deal.
Again, the organization will be kicking themselves for years after discovering that they traded the next Roy and kept the next Cujo. Think the Isles want Luongo back, as opposed to Ricky D?[/
QUOTE]

...and that is exactly where my reservations lie as well. I figured I would first take it to the level which probably gets the deal done, and get some feed back. Perhaps what Balej suggests makes more sense, but I hesitate here. I'll give that idea some more thought. The other thing that makes me think that Staal maybe the guy to go for, is the criticisms leveled at Kessel's game lately. Again, I have not seen him play; so I don't know, but folks are saying he stays away from high traffic areas. In any event the Rangers need a top line prospect in their system. The two main questions as I see them are:

1) Who are those players in this years draft and are they a good fit.

2) What is the price and is it worth it.

Pizza is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 03:52 PM
  #40
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
That is different that what Balej is suggesting By inlcuding Montoya you change the dynamics of the trade. Balej was suggesting that our #1, a #2 & Immonen would be enough to move up to a lottery pick. IMO, that is not enough. However, include Montoya in a proposed deal, and it may be enough.
However, I keep going back to I do not want to trade Montoya, unless it is for very special circumstances. I do not know if even a prospect like Staal is enough to make me want to do such a deal.
Again, the organization will be kicking themselves for years after discovering that they traded the next Roy and kept the next Cujo. Think the Isles want Luongo back, as opposed to Ricky D?
Thats right folks.......

True Blue just compared Lundqivst to "Ricky D"

He also is comparing Montoya to Luongo?

What a second TB according to the way you judge prospects we can't call Montoya anything yet. If you can't call immonen or dawes a future 1st line guy (which you refuse to do) how can you project anything near luongo for Montoya?

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 04:04 PM
  #41
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
Thats right folks.......

True Blue just compared Lundqivst to "Ricky D"

He also is comparing Montoya to Luongo?

What a second TB according to the way you judge prospects we can't call Montoya anything yet. If you can't call immonen or dawes a future 1st line guy (which you refuse to do) how can you project anything near luongo for Montoya?
SOS he wasn't project anything for anyone. He was saying he wants to see who the better long term goalie is because Montoya might be better than Lundqvist. He might not be as well, but TB wants to see what happens rather than make a trade and regret it.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 04:07 PM
  #42
lunky30
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10
vCash: 500
How about no. Considering Jagr leads the NHL in points, and is in the top 5 in goals and assists, something he tells me he's not all that lazy. Nylander and Straka are plenty good enough for the 1st line. The only mistake the Rangers made was tampering with that line. When those guys are together they play great. I like the team we have now, excepte for possibly having a better backup to Lundqvist and more consistent defensive play.

lunky30 is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 04:08 PM
  #43
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
SOS he wasn't project anything for anyone. He was saying he wants to see who the better long term goalie is because Montoya might be better than Lundqvist. He might not be as well, but TB wants to see what happens rather than make a trade and regret it.
Edge it isn't the first time he has made this sort of analogy. The last time was when he plagerized another poster and said "the rangers might be trading the future Roy and keeping Joseph"

Nobody is saying Montoya should be traded for a 2nd round pick. Montoya should be moved to get a established first line center. (brad Richards?!?!?!)

TB still thinks this is January 2004 not 2006. It's a shame because he is missing a great young hard working team this season.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 04:15 PM
  #44
MidnightRanger
Registered User
 
MidnightRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 1,439
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MidnightRanger
The Rangers should trade Jagr to a contender

I WANT KESSEL!!!! And Peter Mueller

MidnightRanger is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 04:29 PM
  #45
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
Edge it isn't the first time he has made this sort of analogy. The last time was when he plagerized another poster and said "the rangers might be trading the future Roy and keeping Joseph"

Nobody is saying Montoya should be traded for a 2nd round pick. Montoya should be moved to get a established first line center. (brad Richards?!?!?!)

TB still thinks this is January 2004 not 2006. It's a shame because he is missing a great young hard working team this season.
All he said is he wants to see which goalie is better long term and frankly having seen Montoya for a few years, his potential is right up there. Trading him for a player is a very risky move. As much as I like Brad Richards, I've never been totally wowed by him nor do I particularly want him to be this team's first line center. So I personally wouldn't package Montoya in a deal for him.

I think this is exactly the kind of season that tests a teams' focus because you see early success and you never build the team to take the next steps. This team is still going to need develop talent over the next few years, this isn't the set/finished product yet with so many over 30's on the top lines.

You gotta figure that maybe at BEST 1/2 of our top prospects will make the NHL, now the question is which ones. If you trade the wrong ones you have nothing, despite what depth you might have had.

I think there's a middle ground in this equation.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 04:29 PM
  #46
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
The last time was when he plagerized another poster and said "the rangers might be trading the future Roy and keeping Joseph"
I've tried to stay away from the rest of your drivel. But here I had to draw the line. Most of what you write is fairly extrementitous at best. They add zero value around here and most can best be deemed as toilet-worthy. However, when you blatantly lie to try to make your petty, feeble arguments seem better, I had to respond. The above line was used first by Dedalus. For a very long time I refered to his name as being associated with it. However, after inserting it into arguments enough times, I just stopped becuase I assumed that most people that actually read these posts got the picture.
However, as you are not most people and selectively read everything, and blatantly reinvent what little you do read, did not get the memo.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 05:05 PM
  #47
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I've tried to stay away from the rest of your drivel. But here I had to draw the line. Most of what you write is fairly extrementitous at best. They add zero value around here and most can best be deemed as toilet-worthy. However, when you blatantly lie to try to make your petty, feeble arguments seem better, I had to respond. The above line was used first by Dedalus. For a very long time I refered to his name as being associated with it. However, after inserting it into arguments enough times, I just stopped becuase I assumed that most people that actually read these posts got the picture.
However, as you are not most people and selectively read everything, and blatantly reinvent what little you do read, did not get the memo.
Don't be upset TB. I have your used own words in other posts to show how you talk out of both sides of your mouth. I bet in 6 months you will be saying how Sather is a moron because he should've traded Montoya.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
01-28-2006, 05:26 PM
  #48
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,112
vCash: 500
Trade Montoya?

so then it's Lundqvist and no other real depth in the organization. And what type of value does a 21 year old in the AHL have? That would be a waste in my opinion. Lundqvist has been great this season, and personally I think he's the real deal, but remember, there's been a lot of 21, 22 and 23 year old goalies come on the scene and excel for periods of time and go away - Jim Carey being one. Lalime started like an All Star. And others. Let's see how Lundqvist does as a 'starter' before trading Montoya.

Fletch 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 02:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.