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

Canes wanted Staal from the Rangers for Johnson

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2006, 10:30 PM
  #51
KFC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
But to call out a future cornerstone player who is potentially a generational talent as "available if the right deal comes along," thus losing any leverage in a deal including him?

What not to do as a GM 101

- Never give away leverage in deals, you end up screwing yourself.

By declaring Johnson available, Rutherford lost his leverage, and has screwed himself.

- Deal when necessary, and deal what needs to be dealt to accomplish your goals.

Really, was it that necessary to deal a potential generational talent of a future franchise defenseman just to get Oleg Tverdovsky off of their hands and get a checking player so they can have a 50/50 chance at repeating?

- Short-Term Thinking

Again, I'll bring up the 50/50 chance at repeating this year. Do you take the risk and go for it again, or do you realize that you have a great team core built in place with guys like Staal, Cole, Johnson, Ward, Ladd, etc. and wait and restock some more players in the draft and build up? Not to mention they had a bad cap situation, so why are you going to take on more NHL contracts in one season when you can draft those kinds of players that left, your Cullens and Aaron Wards, in the upcoming drafts, and take them in at entry level and two-way deals that won't count against the cap so much? Poor asset and financial management by Rutherford. What was he thinking?
he wasnt thinking about repeating, he just wanted to stay competative... if the canes have a terrible year this year... alot of the momentum and interest they've built up in raleigh is down the drain. and sure you can draft your arron wards and and your cullens in the drafts but he needed replacemnets NOW.... if your going to trade a talent like JJ anyway... you might as well help your team now(belanger and ridding themselves of teverdosky's salary) and later(gleason is a good young nhl proven defenseman). yes... he could have done better... but he didnt do nearly as bad as you are saying...

KFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 10:44 PM
  #52
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
he wasnt thinking about repeating, he just wanted to stay competative... if the canes have a terrible year this year... alot of the momentum and interest they've built up in raleigh is down the drain. and sure you can draft your arron wards and and your cullens in the drafts but he needed replacemnets NOW.
If he just wanted to stay competitive, then why make a deal? He had more than adequate team. Letowski wouldn't have produced the offensive numbers that Cullen did, but he would have played the same kind of game, and given the same versatility that Cullen did.

There was no need for that trade, whatsoever.

Carolina certainly had more than enough to be a competitive team. Ladd will be able to contribute more, Cole will be back and healthy. They've got guys who can score, and they've got a decent defense. Ward will still win them games.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 10:55 PM
  #53
KFC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
If he just wanted to stay competitive, then why make a deal? He had more than adequate team. Letowski wouldn't have produced the offensive numbers that Cullen did, but he would have played the same kind of game, and given the same versatility that Cullen did.

There was no need for that trade, whatsoever.

Carolina certainly had more than enough to be a competitive team. Ladd will be able to contribute more, Cole will be back and healthy. They've got guys who can score, and they've got a decent defense. Ward will still win them games.
They were very thin depth-wise injuries could have ravaged that team... this trade was insurance aginst that and plus gleason will be a big addition...

KFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 11:22 PM
  #54
AJ1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AJ1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
That's fine, the whole potential bit. You're right about that, but what you're forgetting here is that to do that to one, you have to do that to the other. Gleason is not even an established 6th NHL defender yet, and his career hinges on his potential, so even if you want drop Johnson's value down because he's still an unproven prospect, you have to do the same for Gleason, as he has not established himself in the NHL yet. So there, we're back to stage 1, Johnson still wins, therefore the value coming in return should be greater. Also, another problem with 2 2nd rounders is that they might not be top 10 picks. They could be around #45 for all we know, maybe even #50, or closer to #60. Johnson was a top 3 pick in his draft class, and is regarded as a potentially generational talent. A package consisting of a POTENTIAL TOP 4 and 2 2nd rounders in no way shape or form can justify trading him. I know I wouldn't trade him for that. It would be like trading Dubinsky and Immonen for Ovechkin before last season started. Two potentially good players, for a potentially dominating talent. Just doesn't balance out.
I think we have a difference of opinion about Gleason, I think he has proven that he is a capable NHL'er, at least as much as a guy like Tyutin has.

AJ1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 11:32 PM
  #55
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Hmmm we could have had JJ for Staal....? VERY interesting....that one would make me think for a few hours if i was GM. BUT if the rangers staff thinking Staal is the better way to go then I will agree with them(I know Renney was really pulling for Staal on draft day). And judging how we have picked int he last few years...keep it up! (even though some of it still is in question...its looking good IMO)

I wouldn't mind either though of course but i know Staal will be on our top pairing for years and years to come as a Ranger so I am not complaining.

FLYLine24* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 11:56 PM
  #56
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
They were very thin depth-wise injuries could have ravaged that team... this trade was insurance aginst that and plus gleason will be a big addition...
Insurance?

I wonder what you consider "fool-proof."

That trade will not help them any bit. In the short and long term, they lose, just a down right stupid trade, there is no explanation for it.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 12:25 AM
  #57
Nick00
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,876
vCash: 500
Let's just hope he doesn't end up like Jessiman

Nick00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 12:26 AM
  #58
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ1982 View Post
I think we have a difference of opinion about Gleason, I think he has proven that he is a capable NHL'er, at least as much as a guy like Tyutin has.
I've watched both, I love watching LA, as I've mentioned in other threads, I love Bob Miller telecasts, because I can be half asleep, and still keep track of the game, because he calls a great game.

Back to the subject, Gleason has not been great. He has 23 more games of NHL experience, and Fedor looked better both this season, and in 04. There's just no explanation for this. Fedor has the higher upside as well, as Gleason's is that of a top-4, Fedor's is of a top-pairing defender.

From watching both, I can see that Fedor is better developed to this point, and his offense is starting to come out. Gleason has been horrible in training camp so far, and some of the kings fans in the original thread on the trade board wanted Gleason and Aaron Miller gone last season. Check that out, if you like.

I think Fedor's got a lot more upside than Gleason, and is further along in development. Thus, his value is a lot higher.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 01:21 AM
  #59
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick26 View Post
Let's just hope he doesn't end up like Jessiman
FYI Jessiman has been playing well so far this preseason/season.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 02:17 AM
  #60
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 DaveMatthew View Post
Sounds about right. I'm gonna be honest, I don't think Marc Staal's top end is much higher than Tim Gleason's, is at all.

I watched both these guys in junior, and some of you are really underestimating Gleason. He'll be a solid #2 or #3 defenseman, much like Staal will be.
Sorry but Gleason was never the best defenseman at the WJC or a guy who SHUT DOWN a player who was seen as the most talented forward not playing in the NHL.

Gleason is a nice player, but him and Staal/Johnson are two different levels.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 05:44 AM
  #61
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
Larry Brooks

Quote:
The Hurricanes were as determined to remove Oleg Tverdovsky's $5M over the next two seasons from the books as they were to trade Jack Johnson for immediate help on defense, and that is why the Rangers - and numerous other clubs - backed off
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10012006...oks.htm?page=0

Sounds like Carolina told teams they had to take Tverdovsky in any deal involving Johnson

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 05:53 AM
  #62
KFC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
Insurance?

I wonder what you consider "fool-proof."

That trade will not help them any bit. In the short and long term, they lose, just a down right stupid trade, there is no explanation for it.
adding gleason and belanger won't help them?????!!! thats crazy talk talk ofcourse it helps them gleason makes a significant differance... and if they felt they couldn't sign JJ, they did not do nearly as bad as you say because they not only adressed current needs but also adressed the future getting a young plaer like gleason.

KFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 02:04 PM
  #63
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
adding gleason and belanger won't help them?????!!! thats crazy talk talk ofcourse it helps them gleason makes a significant differance... and if they felt they couldn't sign JJ, they did not do nearly as bad as you say because they not only adressed current needs but also adressed the future getting a young plaer like gleason.
It's pretty clear that you're trying to blindly defend this trade.

Gleason has STILL YET TO PROVE that he is an established NHL defender.

You're right, they didn't do nearly as bad as I said... they did worse! Not only did they not get a defender who isn't even close to Marc Staal, let alone Jack Johnson's level, but they got a spare part which they could have gotten from their AHL affiliate. For what reason? To dump Tverdosky's salary, when you've still got a little wiggle room under the cap? That's pointless, and you know what else is pointless? Dealing a potential generational talent that's a cornerstone franchise player just because he wanted to play his SOPHOMORE SEASON IN COLLEGE, at a time in which his value was LOWERED because there was no one in search of a prospect defender who was declared as "available" thus lowering his value even further. They could have waited until the trade deadline, and gotten a lot more for him. It would take 3 more years for him to just go as a free agent if Carolina couldn't sign him. After his senior year at college, if he was unsigned by August 15th, then he would have became a UFA. 3 Years is a LONG LONG TIME, and his value, according to his development, could have gone up by then.

Rutherford mismanaged his assets, and misplayed the market, therefore he got screwed. He went into panic mode to make a deal for the sake of making a deal, and lost any leverage he ever had.

There is NO WAY you can defend this trade.

Like you said... he was trading to stay competitve...

Bottom Line: You don't trade a franchise player to "stay competitive."

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 02:25 PM
  #64
MisterUnspoken
Vintage
 
MisterUnspoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 10,074
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MisterUnspoken
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
It's pretty clear that you're trying to blindly defend this trade.

Gleason has STILL YET TO PROVE that he is an established NHL defender.

You're right, they didn't do nearly as bad as I said... they did worse! Not only did they not get a defender who isn't even close to Marc Staal, let alone Jack Johnson's level, but they got a spare part which they could have gotten from their AHL affiliate. For what reason? To dump Tverdosky's salary, when you've still got a little wiggle room under the cap? That's pointless, and you know what else is pointless? Dealing a potential generational talent that's a cornerstone franchise player just because he wanted to play his SOPHOMORE SEASON IN COLLEGE, at a time in which his value was LOWERED because there was no one in search of a prospect defender who was declared as "available" thus lowering his value even further. They could have waited until the trade deadline, and gotten a lot more for him. It would take 3 more years for him to just go as a free agent if Carolina couldn't sign him. After his senior year at college, if he was unsigned by August 15th, then he would have became a UFA. 3 Years is a LONG LONG TIME, and his value, according to his development, could have gone up by then.

Rutherford mismanaged his assets, and misplayed the market, therefore he got screwed. He went into panic mode to make a deal for the sake of making a deal, and lost any leverage he ever had.

There is NO WAY you can defend this trade.

Like you said... he was trading to stay competitve...

Bottom Line: You don't trade a franchise player to "stay competitive."
Only problem is that Jack Johnson is not a franchise player yet. You're whole premise works if they are trading Kovalchuk for Gleason + Belanger. Not so much for an unproven prospect -- who no matter the amount of hype is subject to failure.

MisterUnspoken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 02:35 PM
  #65
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterUnspoken View Post
Only problem is that Jack Johnson is not a franchise player yet. You're whole premise works if they are trading Kovalchuk for Gleason + Belanger. Not so much for an unproven prospect -- who no matter the amount of hype is subject to failure.
This is what people need to realize. Yeah hes a top light prospect but he has yet to prove anything above the level of college. He could live up to potential or he could bust, or he could end up somewhere in between. The effects of this trade wont be know for at least 4-5 years. Rutherford has come out and said this is the best deal he was offered and he took it. Trading Staal for Johnson is a lateral move at best. Neither are going to play in the NHL this year and have an impact.

Grezt you say Gleason hasnt established himself as an NHL defender yet ,so what does that say about Tyutin. Both played their first full NHL season last year and both are going on the 2nd. Neither are established in that case. As far as offering up both Tyutin and Immonen would the Rags have taken Tverdovsky as well considering that seems to be the sticking point of the trade? They asked for Staal NY said no. Now they they traded him for some spare parts that arent worth much as you think its time to rip the players involved in the deal. The rags had their chance and didnt step up to the plate.

kingpest19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 02:55 PM
  #66
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Larry Brooks



http://www.nypost.com/seven/10012006...oks.htm?page=0

Sounds like Carolina told teams they had to take Tverdovsky in any deal involving Johnson
Well i'm not sure why the Rangers would have balked soley because they didn't want Tvedovsky coming along as part of the deal. They could certainly make room for his 2.5 mil/year for this year and next IF they felt Johnson was the real deal.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 03:10 PM
  #67
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterUnspoken View Post
Only problem is that Jack Johnson is not a franchise player yet. You're whole premise works if they are trading Kovalchuk for Gleason + Belanger. Not so much for an unproven prospect -- who no matter the amount of hype is subject to failure.
Subject? You make it sound like he's definitely going to fail, give me a break.

Johnson is arguably the top defensive prospect out there for a reason, Gleason has barely graduated prospect status, and his upside isn't all too high.

Bottom Line: If Johnson wasn't declared as "available" Carolina could have commaned a lot more in return. That return is FAR BELOW fair value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpest19 View Post
This is what people need to realize. Yeah hes a top light prospect but he has yet to prove anything above the level of college. He could live up to potential or he could bust, or he could end up somewhere in between. The effects of this trade wont be know for at least 4-5 years. Rutherford has come out and said this is the best deal he was offered and he took it. Trading Staal for Johnson is a lateral move at best. Neither are going to play in the NHL this year and have an impact.

Grezt you say Gleason hasnt established himself as an NHL defender yet ,so what does that say about Tyutin. Both played their first full NHL season last year and both are going on the 2nd. Neither are established in that case. As far as offering up both Tyutin and Immonen would the Rags have taken Tverdovsky as well considering that seems to be the sticking point of the trade? They asked for Staal NY said no. Now they they traded him for some spare parts that arent worth much as you think its time to rip the players involved in the deal. The rags had their chance and didnt step up to the plate.
You say that about Johnson, but the same can be said for Gleason, who's potential isn't even in the SAME PLANET as Johnson's, Staal's, or Tyutin's. All 3 are potential top-pairing defenders. That's why Tyutin and Immonen was a far better offer. I would have taken Tverdovsky in a heartbeat to get Johnson. The Rangers could use him at this point. This defense is suspect.

I rip the players because they're not worth the return for Jack Johnson. I'm sorry, but from watching both of them thanks to Center Ice, Tyutin was better in 04, 06, and this training camp. His value would be A LOT HIGHER than Gleason's right now, as for Immonen, potentially at worst, he's what Belanger is right now, and at his best, he's one of the top 2nd line centers in the league. Not only that, but his contract is smaller than Belanger's, and he can step in and do what Belanger is doing RIGHT NOW, and he will, for the Rangers.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 03:20 PM
  #68
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
Subject? You make it sound like he's definitely going to fail, give me a break.

Johnson is arguably the top defensive prospect out there for a reason, Gleason has barely graduated prospect status, and his upside isn't all too high.

Bottom Line: If Johnson wasn't declared as "available" Carolina could have commaned a lot more in return. That return is FAR BELOW fair value.



You say that about Johnson, but the same can be said for Gleason, who's potential isn't even in the SAME PLANET as Johnson's, Staal's, or Tyutin's. All 3 are potential top-pairing defenders. That's why Tyutin and Immonen was a far better offer. I would have taken Tverdovsky in a heartbeat to get Johnson. The Rangers could use him at this point. This defense is suspect.

I rip the players because they're not worth the return for Jack Johnson. I'm sorry, but from watching both of them thanks to Center Ice, Tyutin was better in 04, 06, and this training camp. His value would be A LOT HIGHER than Gleason's right now, as for Immonen, potentially at worst, he's what Belanger is right now, and at his best, he's one of the top 2nd line centers in the league. Not only that, but his contract is smaller than Belanger's, and he can step in and do what Belanger is doing RIGHT NOW, and he will, for the Rangers.
Noone is saying that Gleason is in Johnson or Staals league. As far as your tyutin immonen offer goes who knows if it was offered up to the Canes. You have to realize that by getting Gleason and Belanger they got 2 players who are known quantities. With Tyutin Immonen they get. Obviously the Tverdovsky contract was a big reason in this deal getting done. But the fact is is that there are few teams who could afford to take on that deal. The Canes got 2 players that can step in right now and play for them . Not seasons down the road. Rutherford felt this was the best deal he got offered and took it. So apparently he wasnt offered any dman above the talent level of Gleason and no 3rd line checking center above the talent of Belanger.

kingpest19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 03:35 PM
  #69
KFC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
It's pretty clear that you're trying to blindly defend this trade.

Gleason has STILL YET TO PROVE that he is an established NHL defender.

You're right, they didn't do nearly as bad as I said... they did worse! Not only did they not get a defender who isn't even close to Marc Staal, let alone Jack Johnson's level, but they got a spare part which they could have gotten from their AHL affiliate. For what reason? To dump Tverdosky's salary, when you've still got a little wiggle room under the cap? That's pointless, and you know what else is pointless? Dealing a potential generational talent that's a cornerstone franchise player just because he wanted to play his SOPHOMORE SEASON IN COLLEGE, at a time in which his value was LOWERED because there was no one in search of a prospect defender who was declared as "available" thus lowering his value even further. They could have waited until the trade deadline, and gotten a lot more for him. It would take 3 more years for him to just go as a free agent if Carolina couldn't sign him. After his senior year at college, if he was unsigned by August 15th, then he would have became a UFA. 3 Years is a LONG LONG TIME, and his value, according to his development, could have gone up by then.

Rutherford mismanaged his assets, and misplayed the market, therefore he got screwed. He went into panic mode to make a deal for the sake of making a deal, and lost any leverage he ever had.

There is NO WAY you can defend this trade.

Like you said... he was trading to stay competitve...

Bottom Line: You don't trade a franchise player to "stay competitive."
I havent blindly defended this trade(all i said was that it wasnt AS bad as you made it out to be because your making this out to be the worst trade ever), why would i? i'm a ranger fan... i gave my reasons and i clearly and fully explained them... you have a difference of oppinion... just drop it dude. I'm done arguing with you.

oh and if i'm supposedly "blindly defending this trade" then i the way i see it you are blindly bashing it.

KFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 03:36 PM
  #70
frozenrubber
Registered User
 
frozenrubber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
...as for Immonen, potentially at worst, he's what Belanger is right now, and at his best, he's one of the top 2nd line centers in the league. Not only that, but his contract is smaller than Belanger's, and he can step in and do what Belanger is doing RIGHT NOW, and he will, for the Rangers.
Let's not get our prospect hype into overdrive. Immonem's upside is A 2nd line Center...not one of the best.

The return that Carolina got was sure to bring up this debate on every team's board. Everyone is right to think they could of offered a better deal for JJ, b/c no matter what way you spin it, you can't put lipstick on this pig of a deal.

Regardless, there was a reason why Thorton was traded to the Sharks last season. The reason: 2500 miles. JJ just wasn't going to be traded to an Eastern Conference team. Now that leaves 14 other teams pissed they didn't make a deal and they should be complaining.

As for Tverdosky, regardless of his contract, he's still young enough to be waived/stashed in the minors. I would be absolutely livid if I was a Canes fan and Rutherford and Co. weren't willing to eat Oleg's 2.5mil/yr if needed to make the team better. Hell, the Rangers are doing it w/ Oleg's mentor, Sandis. If moving Tverdosky's salary was a main element of this trade, this is very sad for the game.

Lastly, kudos to LA. While trading for potential has failed before, the O'Sullivan and JJ moves this offseason will at least net them one homerun.

frozenrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 03:59 PM
  #71
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
I havent blindly defended this trade(all i said was that it wasnt AS bad as you made it out to be because your making this out to be the worst trade ever), why would i? i'm a ranger fan... i gave my reasons and i clearly and fully explained them... you have a difference of oppinion... just drop it dude. I'm done arguing with you.

oh and if i'm supposedly "blindly defending this trade" then i the way i see it you are blindly bashing it.
Blindly bashing it? If saying that Johnson's return should have been much higher than the crap that was given for him, then so be it. Any general manager will tell you that Johnson should have fetched a far better return if dealt at the right time and that this trade was pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenrubber View Post
Let's not get our prospect hype into overdrive. Immonem's upside is A 2nd line Center...not one of the best.

The return that Carolina got was sure to bring up this debate on every team's board. Everyone is right to think they could of offered a better deal for JJ, b/c no matter what way you spin it, you can't put lipstick on this pig of a deal.

Regardless, there was a reason why Thorton was traded to the Sharks last season. The reason: 2500 miles. JJ just wasn't going to be traded to an Eastern Conference team. Now that leaves 14 other teams pissed they didn't make a deal and they should be complaining.

As for Tverdosky, regardless of his contract, he's still young enough to be waived/stashed in the minors. I would be absolutely livid if I was a Canes fan and Rutherford and Co. weren't willing to eat Oleg's 2.5mil/yr if needed to make the team better. Hell, the Rangers are doing it w/ Oleg's mentor, Sandis. If moving Tverdosky's salary was a main element of this trade, this is very sad for the game.

Lastly, kudos to LA. While trading for potential has failed before, the O'Sullivan and JJ moves this offseason will at least net them one homerun.
His vision, smarts, and passing are outstanding. His skating needs work, and his shot isn't bad by any means. He can be one of the better, if not one of the best 2nd line centers in the NHL at his peak if all goes right. I don't think that will happen, I think he'll be a solid 2nd liner, but the potential is there, he does have the makings.

That's fine if he wanted to deal him that far away, you should still at least pony up an offer. If they wanted Staal, ask them if they would have taken a different package. You've got to at least make an attempt and have a feel for what they want. That's how deals start.

I'm happy for LA, I like LA. They're one of my top 5 favorite teams. I think they'll win multiple cups in the next 10 years with the talent they have. They have an outstanding core.

As for Tverdovsky, the Rangers could actually use him right now, so I would have definitely taken him.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 04:51 PM
  #72
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,544
vCash: 500
Gretz- Some guys, or more like most hockeyplayers, kind of have a roof when it comes to their skating.

I don't know how much you are into Trac& Field, but lets say Pavel Bure where like Carl Lewis. Pavel could skate like Carl could run. Allot of it where practise, allot of it where talent. There is no way someone like A-Rod could practise and become as fast as Carl Lewis. Jarkko Immonen needs work on his skating, though the work he puts in there, can only take him so far. If Immonen skated like Zetterberg he would be one of he best 2nd line centers in the game.

Immonens engine aren't very good, I think he have worked extremely hard just to get where he is with his skating. He just aint a very talented skater.

A good comparision is probably Dubinsky and Immonen. Dubinsky, quite honestly, is a terrible skater today, but after seeing him skate I think he have allot of potential to improve his speed. I think Jessiman have that to. I am pretty sure Bruce Graham never will be able to improve his skating, and I kind of feel like Immonen have reached his max too.

Dubinsky just have a better "engine", its complex, but he gets somewhere when he takes a stride, it doesn't look pretty but he goes forward. Dubinsky kind of reminds me of Forsberg gooing straight ahead. Forsberg aren't techniqally a very good skater, but his speed gooing forward is great. Immonen is just one of thoose guys who looks kind of heavy when skating, they rarely are able to work that away.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 04:54 PM
  #73
MisterUnspoken
Vintage
 
MisterUnspoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 10,074
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MisterUnspoken
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
Subject? You make it sound like he's definitely going to fail, give me a break.

Johnson is arguably the top defensive prospect out there for a reason, Gleason has barely graduated prospect status, and his upside isn't all too high.

What's your point? So you are saying he couldn't fail? Fact is that for SOME reason they wanted to move JJ. As far as we know he refused to play for Carolina and they salvaged what they could before the news became public.

In other words all these theories are a bunch of hot air.

MisterUnspoken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 05:04 PM
  #74
frozenrubber
Registered User
 
frozenrubber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post

As for Tverdovsky, the Rangers could actually use him right now, so I would have definitely taken him.
Let correct something here. You don't want (or should want) a very 1-dimensional Tverdovsky. While maybe a stopgap for the regular season (much like Ozo), there is a major reason why the Canes and Devils chose not to play him in the playoffs. Very similar liabilities that Sandis showed during the Devils series.

Just a quick note as this point you keep harping on severely discredits some of your other opinions.

frozenrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2006, 06:33 PM
  #75
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Larry Brooks



http://www.nypost.com/seven/10012006...oks.htm?page=0

Sounds like Carolina told teams they had to take Tverdovsky in any deal involving Johnson

hmm. I'm all for maintaining cap flexibility, but If this is the reason for backing off Johnson then I'm alittle disapointed.

I would have gladly given up Tyutin + and eaten Tverdovsky's contract if it was going to fetch me Johnson.

And while I was orgionally of the opinion that the Rangers didn't have enough to offer the Canes, when you consider what they got back...

It's not worth lamenting over because it's done, but damn!

xander 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 10:43 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.