I'm pretty certain that Renney is gone too, if we're selling. We're likely to see something today you'd think. But tommy boy seems so content with a playoff run. I'd love to see it but I'm pretty certain at the most we'll see Ward or Rachunek go and we'll get someone not so earth-shaking. I"m pretty happy with any moves that don't include our good prospects. But I'm still rooting for this team to pull it together.
Burke said he is surprised at the price some potential playoff teams are willing to pay for "rental" players they probably won't keep past the postseason. Most of the major deals done so far have included a first-round pick and, in some cases, much more
"We go into every deal with the price we're going to pay and nothing more," Burke said. "We set an internal thing and if they don't hit it, then we'll back away. We're not going to change. It might mean that we do nothing.
"If we can't make a deal that makes sense, we'll keep it and we'll use it [at the draft] in Columbus in June."
If the Rangers intend on getting another first round pick,they better act quickly.So many of the other teams have already traded their #1's except for Detroit and Anaheim with TB's #1.It's highly doubtful the Rangers make such a move because the team is run w/out any accountabilty or responsibilty
refresh my memory...when did anaheim get tb's #1??
I'm pretty certain that Renney is gone too, if we're selling. We're likely to see something today you'd think. But tommy boy seems so content with a playoff run. I'd love to see it but I'm pretty certain at the most we'll see Ward or Rachunek go and we'll get someone not so earth-shaking. I"m pretty happy with any moves that don't include our good prospects. But I'm still rooting for this team to pull it together.
renney is NOT getting fired. if they were going to make a coaching change mid-season it would have been done a long time ago when there was still time to save the season. doing it now would be pointless. and when/if renney gets replaced behind the bench, he will move back up into his front office position where he should be in the first place. he won't be fired.
i could see a change happen over the summer and a new coach next season, but i'd be shocked if anything happened over the last 20 games.
If we are dealing guys just because we don't think they got any future here, I guess picks would do.
But a 1st round pick from a contender the majority of time are 3-4 years away from helping out... So I would think that we are more interested in prospects.
Though, I agree with you on Maloney and Slats, a good GM would have asked around what we could get for a Malik or Nylander three weeks ago if we were out by now, now we are out and a good GM should just be able to lift up the phone and pull the trigger. Though, I wouldn't be suprised if Slats and Maloney were laying in their beds at this point, 3am et and wondering what da heck to do know.
any draft pick is more valuable than a pending ufa that won't be here beyond this season. and who cares if they are 3-4 years away from helping, dubinsky, dawes, callahan, baranka, korpikoski, maybe staal are ready now. you can only have so many rookies in the lineup at the same time. so if a couple of those guys make it next year (we hope), then guys like dupont, sauer and pyatt the following year, a kid that is 3 years away would be almost perfect timing after those guys.
plus don't forget about being able to use those extra picks to trade up (which the rangers have done often in recent years). it looks like our pick is gonna be around #10. adding extra picks in the 20-50 range might now land us a superstar but those picks might let us trade up from #10 to land a superstar.
well like they say think about how dumb the average person is and then realize that 1/2 the people are stupider than that.
There are people out there who just look at it as another form of entertainment. They haven't put the same amount of energy into analyzing as most of the people who come here. They are more casual and the kind of fan the NHL is always marketing for. It is unfortunate but their voices count as much as any of ours to the braintrusts who run the league. The best we can hope for might be the Rangers not making any trades at all. Sounds to me they're inclined towards dealing prospects for quick fixes.
refresh my memory...when did anaheim get tb's #1??
When?Two days ago
Quote:
The Anaheim Ducks announced today that the National Hockey League (NHL) club has acquired goaltender Gerald Coleman and a 2007 first-round draft pick from Tampa Bay in exchange for Shane O’Brien and a 2007 third-round draft pick*. Coleman will report directly to the Portland Pirates, Anaheim’s primary development affiliate in the American Hockey League (AHL).
I've read the whole thread. Nothing I've read has convinced me that trading away older players for good picks and prospects will have any lasting negative effect on this team. When buyers are tossing around 1st round picks for marginal players and our team is going nowhere fast I see no reason we shouldn't be offering our guys to the highest bidder.
This wasn't necessarily the case two days ago, and quite likely still isn't the case now. At least not if there are players in the room that still feel they're capable of doing things. What message does it send to any young player in this organization if they still feel they've got a shot and management suddenly pulls the plug and sells?
It's not enough just to develop skilled hockey players, you've also got to groom them with a winning mentality - something which takes more than 6 months to put together.
Maybe things have changed with the Columbus defeat, maybe they haven't, but who really thinks the Rangers are going to trade Nylander (much less Jagr)? Who thinks we're going to get a Braydon Coburn in return for Ward or Rachunek? You're fooling yourselves.
Big E: Don't you think that Sather and Maloney should do due diligence to see if there is a market. Clearly, if I'm in their shoes, I'd see if there are any takers for all players over the age of 30. My thoughts on this team are known and this team clearly needs a new direction
This wasn't necessarily the case two days ago, and quite likely still isn't the case now. At least not if there are players in the room that still feel they're capable of doing things. What message does it send to any young player in this organization if they still feel they've got a shot and management suddenly pulls the plug and sells?
It's not enough just to develop skilled hockey players, you've also got to groom them with a winning mentality - something which takes more than 6 months to put together.
Maybe things have changed with the Columbus defeat, maybe they haven't, but who really thinks the Rangers are going to trade Nylander (much less Jagr)? Who thinks we're going to get a Braydon Coburn in return for Ward or Rachunek? You're fooling yourselves.
The abysmal Philly game was 9 days ago. Then the Chicago game followed a day later and that wasn't so great either, despite the win. Then we lose 2 to the Devils, one of which was a disaster in that we once again blew a multiple goal lead, and a lead in the third. Are you really saying that things were looking good before the Columbus game?
I just don't buy the fact that young players have to win to be successful. If they are coached right they can be talked to when they make mistakes and reassured that despite any short term frustrations and disappointments, the team's goal is on the future. As long as they aren't pressured into thinking they must win now, I see no reason why they can't be brought along successfully.
Big E: Don't you think that Sather and Maloney should do due diligence to see if there is a market. Clearly, if I'm in their shoes, I'd see if there are any takers for all players over the age of 30. My thoughts on this team are known and this team clearly needs a new direction
Believe me when I say that every GM knows the market for the players on his team. Don't fool yourself into thinking the Rangers aren't approached, or aren't approaching teams to see what the market is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue
The abysmal Philly game was 9 days ago. Then the Chicago game followed a day later and that wasn't so great either, despite the win. Then we lose 2 to the Devils, one of which was a disaster in that we once again blew a multiple goal lead, and a lead in the third. Are you really saying that things were looking good before the Columbus game?
I just don't buy the fact that young players have to win to be successful. If they are coached right they can be talked to when they make mistakes and reassured that despite any short term frustrations and disappointments, the team's goal is on the future. As long as they aren't pressured into thinking they must win now, I see no reason why they can't be brought along successfully.
Am I really saying things looked good before the Columbus game? No. I've never made that assertion.
You're inability to comprehend many of the posts in this thread has led to shadow boxing. That, I have little respect for.
Here's an A to B argument that hopefully you can grasp:
Every successful organization has a winning attitude; a culture within the clubhouse that winning is not only possible, but winning is what's going to happen.
In order to create a winning attitude, in any organization, the mantra has to come from management. Everything in business, or in sports, is top down - nothing ever starts with the players.
Hence in order for management to create a winning attitude and culture within this organization they need to send the right messages to their players below.
Selling off all of our players in the middle of a previously tight playoff race is not a sign you send to a group of young players looking for direction. Say what you want about the Philadelphia game but we took two points from Chicago (whatever way you slice it) and competed at a playoff-like level against New Jersey.
The team has the tools to be a playoff team as is. No additions need to be made. It's the attitude - the culture - that is missing. That's why we're giving up 2 goal leads and that's why we find ourselves 6 points out of a playoff spot.
Believe me when I say that every GM knows the market for the players on his team. Don't fool yourself into thinking the Rangers aren't approached, or aren't approaching teams to see what the market is.
Am I really saying things looked good before the Columbus game? No. I've never made that assertion.
You're inability to comprehend many of the posts in this thread has led to shadow boxing. That, I have little respect for.
Here's an A to B argument that hopefully you can grasp:
Every successful organization has a winning attitude; a culture within the clubhouse that winning is not only possible, but winning is what's going to happen.
In order to create a winning attitude, in any organization, the mantra has to come from management. Everything in business, or in sports, is top down - nothing ever starts with the players.
Hence in order for management to create a winning attitude and culture within this organization they need to send the right messages to their players below.
Selling off all of our players in the middle of a previously tight playoff race is not a sign you send to a group of young players looking for direction. Say what you want about the Philadelphia game but we took two points from Chicago (whatever way you slice it) and competed at a playoff-like level against New Jersey.
The team has the tools to be a playoff team as is. No additions need to be made. It's the attitude - the culture - that is missing. That's why we're giving up 2 goal leads and that's why we find ourselves 6 points out of a playoff spot.
Look, this team is not a cup contender type team. It just isn't. The chemistry and coaching isn't right. Yeah, we can squeak into the playoffs... whoopdy freaking do. As for the "winning culture" argument... I don't buy it. Montreal is in a similar position as us yet they managed to sell Rivet for a first because IT MADE SENSE. All I ask is that management looks at any offers we receive and if they are crazy offers like we have been seeing them, don't hesitate. I have no problem selling off Nylander for a first and second rounder or something similar. The same goes for Straka. And if someone had cap room for Jagr and offered 3 first rounders your damn right I would at least consider the offer. If someone is ready to vastly overpay, like teams have been doing then I think it is worth it. I don't think it sets us back any more than 2 to 3 years if things fall into place. The way things are currently is that we have 2 to 3 years of our core older players, who may or may not bring us more than moderate success and after that period they are going to retire. Why not sell now while the selling prices are high to invest in the future?
Unfortunately, I don't really see a sell off happening, so the point is moot.
The thing that worries me is that usually when you become a seller you read reports about other teams scouts being at the game. I have not seen that...
