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

Rangers sign G Kevin Weekes

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-27-2004, 08:14 AM
  #51
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHurricane16
I
Btw, IMO, you guys think about your young goalies waaaaay too much.
So what? Doesn't hurt them or you...

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
08-27-2004, 09:18 AM
  #52
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHurricane16
Dunham played better IMO with Vokoun pushing him
I don't think it was the competitiveness in Nashville that was good for Dunham. It was splitting time. Dunham clearly gets worn out over consecutive starts and is absolutely useless in the 2nd game of a back-to-back. Unfortunately, what's clear to everyone here isn't clear to our coaching staff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WHurricane16
Btw, IMO, you guys think about your young goalies waaaaay too much. Try waiting 4 years from now before one of them might have some sort of impact in the NHL.
If Laberbera isn't ready to make the jump after being an AHL all-star and setting a record for shutouts in a season, then when IS he going to be ready? Not when he's 28, that's for sure. I don't think it's thinking "waaaaaay" to much of him to say, give him a shot at backing up Dunhan, especially in year 1 of a franchise rebuild.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
08-27-2004, 09:22 AM
  #53
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron
So what? Doesn't hurt them or you...
Agreed, and when you already have two of 'em and use the #6 pick in the entry draft to take another one, it's hard not to.

klingsor is offline  
Old
08-27-2004, 09:34 AM
  #54
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,806
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHurricane16
Btw, IMO, you guys think about your young goalies waaaaay too much. Try waiting 4 years from now before one of them might have some sort of impact in the NHL. Smell the frickin' roses, sheeesh.
Uh, you might want to realize tha this is the Rangers board. And we will think about our young goalies (whatever that means) all we like. If it is not to your liking, please feel free not to read the posts.

Smell them roses.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
08-27-2004, 02:47 PM
  #55
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I dunno about the whole being pushed thing. You could make a sound argument that Dunham was the Rangers second best goalie last season so he was being pushed.

I think the problem is just consistency. When Dunham is one, he looks like a legit starter and a top 15 NHL goalie. When he is off he can't stop a beach ball.

It's a flip of the coin as to which one you'll get, always has been. Though the hockey he played down the stretch of the 02-03 season was some of the best goaltending i've ever seen from him.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-27-2004, 03:40 PM
  #56
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,441
vCash: 500
i still think dunhams inconsistancies are closely tied to injuries...he played great for the rangers right up to the exact moment he hurt his groin playing in back to back games. after that, it was all over. he never seemed to get back on track and i question whether he was really even healthy for the rest of the season. his groin was also an issue in nashville as well...

if renney rotates dunham and weekes...he might be able to keep them both fresh and on track and not risk dunham getting injured or weekes getting, i dunno what weekes gets...inconsistant

Levitate is offline  
Old
08-27-2004, 04:52 PM
  #57
AG9NK35DT8*
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bronx/Queens, NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,822
vCash: 500
thank god this deal with weekes is only for one year

AG9NK35DT8* is offline  
Old
08-27-2004, 04:54 PM
  #58
AG9NK35DT8*
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bronx/Queens, NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHurricane16
I see alot of you guys slagging Dunham, but just both of them out there. Dunham played better IMO with Vokoun pushing him, so with Weekes being the No. 1 he will have some pressure off his back. Weekes might will flake-out at times so having Dunham around can't be a bad thing. Would be a more consistent pairing.

Btw, IMO, you guys think about your young goalies waaaaay too much. Try waiting 4 years from now before one of them might have some sort of impact in the NHL. Smell the frickin' roses, sheeesh.
why are u always on the rangers boards complaining i think every one is sick of hearing from u go back to carolina, where u belong.

ill be nice PLEASE go back

AG9NK35DT8* is offline  
Old
08-27-2004, 05:02 PM
  #59
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AG9NK35DT8
why are u always on the rangers boards complaining i think every one is sick of hearing from u go back to carolina, where u belong.

ill be nice PLEASE go back
I believe Singin' handled this awhile ago in the thread.

No need to be rude.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
08-28-2004, 07:59 PM
  #60
bmoak
Registered User
 
bmoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I think the bigger question is how on earth do they move Dunham if at all.

As for Weekes, i dont really mind the signing because he doesn't really block anyone. Blackburn is at least a year away {when Dunham's contract runs out}. and Montoya or Lunqvist is likely at least two years away.

The bigger problem in this instance is trying to figure out a way to dump Dunham on someone.
If Dunham can stay healthy and not aggravate nagging injuries by being overused, he shouldn't be that hard to move...It's a matter of opportunism. Right now, it'd be very hard to move him. But down the stretch when a playoff contending team has a goalie go down with an injury or decides that the kid they started the year with just isn't cutting it, teams will look at Dunham.

Of course, since Weekes is on a 1-year deal, he might be the one dealt at the deadline.

bmoak is offline  
Old
08-28-2004, 08:57 PM
  #61
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 bmoak
If Dunham can stay healthy and not aggravate nagging injuries by being overused, he shouldn't be that hard to move...It's a matter of opportunism. Right now, it'd be very hard to move him. But down the stretch when a playoff contending team has a goalie go down with an injury or decides that the kid they started the year with just isn't cutting it, teams will look at Dunham.

Of course, since Weekes is on a 1-year deal, he might be the one dealt at the deadline.
See I dunno about that. A goalie making {3 million is it? I'm not sure} who throughout his career has struggled to stay consistent and healthy is gonna be hard to move, especially if there is a new labor agreement.

He's also now 32 years old and has been seriously outplayed by his understudy for his last two teams and is probably number 1A for the Rangers as is.

I think Dunham is here till his contract expires.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-28-2004, 10:37 PM
  #62
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
See I dunno about that. A goalie making {3 million is it? I'm not sure} who throughout his career has struggled to stay consistent and healthy is gonna be hard to move, especially if there is a new labor agreement.

He's also now 32 years old and has been seriously outplayed by his understudy for his last two teams and is probably number 1A for the Rangers as is.

I think Dunham is here till his contract expires.
Agreed (hey, I checked, the moon is almost full). I also think that if Weekes plays well, it would have to be a really good offer to get Sather to trade him during the season--unless Weekes makes it absolutely clear he has no interest in re-signing. The Rangers are going to need a veteran goalie next year too, if only to ease Blackburn back into the NHL (assuming he's healthy and actually shows progress this season).

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
08-30-2004, 01:22 PM
  #63
RANGER#11
Registered User
 
RANGER#11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norfolk, New York
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
To me, it says Labarbera isn't in this team's future. Regardless what most people think of him, I say you have to give a player like that a shot this early on in a rebuild.

Can't wait to find out the length of this contract.
I agree. I would of thought he did more then enough last year to deserve a chance.

RANGER#11 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 06:20 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.