Make sense I know no one will trade for him without already having an extension in place. I think I'm just tired so seeing all these trades for stars. We went from needing to add depth, to getting rid of the little depth we had to for one super line.
I really hope this isn't the case and we just keep going forward with what we have, I remember how these super lines work, was not fun.
I hear you, but I completely disagree in this case.
If you have a chance to trade for Weber, you'd be stupid not to aggressively pursue it.
This isn't Rick Nash, Weber has a much better track record and yes, he would make our team that much better.
I don't think that's a given though, that we'll be better. There's scoring depth, but will Cally produce the same with less minutes? Will Kreider and Stepan be able to help take each other to the next level? What'll Hags do? Is Doan on the decline, or what?
It's not a bad team at all. I'd be happy if we went into the season looking like that. But I don't think we can say it's the deepest team in the league without seeing them together for more than a season.
I don't think Callahan will get less minutes.
But if he got slightly less he may be more fresh later in the season. The way he plays that could help his longevity.
But that's three lines Torts could roll about evenly. And spot in the 4th.
I can't promise I can accommodate your preference.
This needed to be multi team process. Had to move Dubi, for example, to create space for Nash. And no, you can't assume you can --- or possibly may want to --- dump them in the same deal. (Chicago wants Dubi, will pay reasonably for him.)
I have mostly tried to do that, making exceptions sometimes under heading of you have to give to get, and don't want to give coke for pepsi.
If that is most dominant factor. But IMO, Staal is better, and if we need a sniper and Girardi must be sacrificed, I can't turn down a deal if the upgrade we get is better than what we've given up.
In my defense, most Girardi deals are for premium in return.
Sorry but do not agree with you at all there. AA will make a boneheaded play, but he usually hustles, and is far more athletic than Stepan. If not constantly jerked around, AA would develop/flourish more quickly. I'm not giving Stepan away, but if there is a good return, I have no problem with AA as replacement.
Believe my proposal was cap compliant.
I specifically identified how these deals fit the other team -- CBH looking for grit, TML seeking wings w/possible pop, etc.
Can understand why you jumped to that line of thought, but no, it was not my thinking.
I thought, Vernace is a guy Edmonton MIGHT have use for, if the price is right, and he makes swallowing loss of Gernat/Marancin more easily, even though they should not be considered as actually here for 2ish years.
I believe Talbot has the reflexes to do the job. He needs poise and development. It is a fair question to ask if he gets more development playing as starter for Whale, OR.... if he is backup here, under eye of coaching staff to nip any technique issues in the bud, playing a third or so of the games, + getting tested by likes of the guys we have up here.
We are better served experimenting carefully with this now, as opposed to relying on Biron for another year or two or whenever his reflexes completely go. (Not sure he's got it for the playoffs, anymore, and as we all saw, not in dispute, Hank needs a game here and there at that point.) If Talbot completely craps the place, we can look at options.
I appreciate the outreach.
We are simply not seeing eye to eye, which is fine, as long as people can be civilized about that.
You want to know why people don't respect your proposals and are always trashing them? It's not a conspiracy against you per se but it's your way over the top approach to solving all this teams problems. That was the whole point of my prior response. If you don't want any advice as to how you might be able to get people to respond to you better--that's fine but I don't need all the glib rejoinders either. Basically went to all that trouble to help you out a little. I see that was a mistake. I'll try not to make it again.
Would you put a package together involving MCD, cause I would think that is who they would want, someone to replace weber?
At least that is who I would say is a must if I was Poile
Poile wouldn't really be in a position to say "so and so" is a must though. If Weber doesn't re sign in Nashville, there is no way he'd want to lose him at the end of the year for nothing.
Staal as a starting point would put us ahead of almost everyone in the league IMO.
If the bidding ever got high enough where McD had to be involved I'd walk away, but I don't think it would get to that point.
Doan would be such a great addition to this team--he's not Nash or Ryan, but given the fact that they could keep the rest of the roster together and simply add him, I think he'd be a much more prudent investment. The key is the number of years; it's a shame he's over 35, because I'd be happy to give him longer term if not for the 35+ rule (although I think it's likely that rule is abolished in the new CBA, we really can't take the chance that it isn't). Would ideally like him on a 2 year deal, but wouldn't have too much of a problem going 3 years. More than 3 years would be very, very risky.
Poile wouldn't really be in a position to say "so and so" is a must though. If Weber doesn't re sign in Nashville, there is no way he'd want to lose him at the end of the year for nothing.
Staal as a starting point would put us ahead of almost everyone in the league IMO.
If the bidding ever got high enough where McD had to be involved I'd walk away, but I don't think it would get to that point.
Sure he would, there will be more than just one team calling.
Sure he would, there will be more than just one team calling.
There will be a bidding war for sure, but hes not like he'll sit and demand a certain player be involved unless the bids get that high.
I'm saying, having Staal as a chip puts us ahead of almost everyone. McD need not be involved and if some other team wants to get crazy where it gets to that point, more power to them.
So just to get this straight with this Nash "rumor." La Greca, who is a radio host more than an actual reporter, re-tweeted a completely unproven source claiming MDZ was being offered. Nobody legit has said anything about it, correct?
Terrible source, but at least they are talking hockey. I'm a glass half full kinda guy.
If I were to guess, and this is only a guess, I don't think money is the biggest factor for Weber. It depends on the direction he feels Nashville is going and may also depend on how much value he puts on choosing his own destiny.
All unknowns at this point. No one knows if Weber becomes available. It's just silly not to at least ask simply because "defense isn't a weakness."
I concur. If he's available then I'm on it. Plenty of teams would be, but I would think the Rangers match up as well as anyone. It should be interesting to see...
I concur. If he's available then I'm on it. Plenty of teams would be, but I would think the Rangers match up as well as anyone. It should be interesting to see...
Agree as well. Defense isn't a weakness that's true, but when you have the chance to get arguably the best player at any position you do your due diligence.
The Rangers don't need Rick Nash to win a Cup. They won't win a Cup next year if they subtract Dubinsky and Stepan to get him.
The young Rangers were too dependent on Richards and Gaborik last postseason. Understandably so, but if I'm a young player, it might make you play cautiously.
The team has grown up, and they're going to be a little older and smarter heading into next season's playoffs. Sure, the same was said for playoff flameouts like Washington and San Jose, but it was also said for Chicago, Pittsburgh and Boston.
Steve Larmer had a tremendous impact on the 1994 team. He was durable, he was highly intelligent and he was a leader. He came to the Rangers early in the season, and right off the bat, Messier and Keenan told him to be himself. IMO Larmer kept that team together as much as Messier.
You need guys who were leaders on other teams. Sometimes it doesnt work, but look at LA -- Richards, for all his faults, was a leader (probably one of the best in the sport). Brown is a leader. Stoll is a leader.
Don't look at Shane Doan for his age, cap hit and production. Look at him as a "glue guy". I even go one further and add Brendan Morrow at the deadline. These guys are not castoff "grinders". They're leaders...the kind of guys the younger players can look up to and be motivated by.
Screw Nash. He's a very good player, but does anyone see him as the kind of guy to carry the team when asked?
This team is very close. Very, very close. No need to knock them off course at all.
A lot of people loved Drury's intangibles and leadership too. Doan is a risk regardless of his good qualities. He's also on the decline, which Drury wasn't when we signed him.
Steve Larmer had a tremendous impact on the 1994 team. He was durable, he was highly intelligent and he was a leader. He came to the Rangers early in the season, and right off the bat, Messier and Keenan told him to be himself. IMO Larmer kept that team together as much as Messier.
Probably the most underrated member of that team.
Fast forward to about the 7:40 mark of that video, the final faceoff of Game 7 vs. Vancouver. Watch Larmer tie up his man on the boards AFTER the celebration began. A little, stupid moment, but in my opinion 100% indicative of what it takes to win the Stanley Cup.
Who is the 2012-13 Rangers' Steve Larmer? I don't think it's Rick Nash.
3 ****ing years for Doan is a joke. An absolute joke. Anyone who'd rather do that than a Nash trade makes me question their sanity. Just what we need -- a big ****ing 35+ contract with a declining guy.
Did you guys not watch the late 90s Rangers? ****, why don't we just dig up Sylvain Lefebvre, Kamensky or something.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
The Rangers don't need Rick Nash to win a Cup. They won't win a Cup next year if they subtract Dubinsky and Stepan to get him.
The young Rangers were too dependent on Richards and Gaborik last postseason. Understandably so, but if I'm a young player, it might make you play cautiously.
The team has grown up, and they're going to be a little older and smarter heading into next season's playoffs. Sure, the same was said for playoff flameouts like Washington and San Jose, but it was also said for Chicago, Pittsburgh and Boston.
Steve Larmer had a tremendous impact on the 1994 team. He was durable, he was highly intelligent and he was a leader. He came to the Rangers early in the season, and right off the bat, Messier and Keenan told him to be himself. IMO Larmer kept that team together as much as Messier.
You need guys who were leaders on other teams. Sometimes it doesnt work, but look at LA -- Richards, for all his faults, was a leader (probably one of the best in the sport). Brown is a leader. Stoll is a leader.
Don't look at Shane Doan for his age, cap hit and production. Look at him as a "glue guy". I even go one further and add Brendan Morrow at the deadline. These guys are not castoff "grinders". They're leaders...the kind of guys the younger players can look up to and be motivated by.
Screw Nash. He's a very good player, but does anyone see him as the kind of guy to carry the team when asked?
This team is very close. Very, very close. No need to knock them off course at all.
And look how hard we had to work to get goals and how many games we had to play to get that close. Bottom line this team needs more scoring from somewhere to turn us into a legit cup contender
