HFBoards

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

Trade Blackburn

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2004, 12:06 PM
  #1
BringGilmourBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,069
vCash: 500
Trade Blackburn

With your glut of goaltenders to worry about (Weekes, Dunham,Montoya, Valiqutte) would you trade Blackburn, lets say to the Leafs? And what would you want for him ...reallistically of course.

BringGilmourBack is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 12:30 PM
  #2
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
no we would not because there is only a potential glut of goaltenders and any trade at this point would bring a undervalued return, or atleast one less then the chance of one of the three becoming legit

in the hall is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 12:44 PM
  #3
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
If the Rangers were offered something decent they might take it, I would if it was sufficient enough. They might believe hes damaged goods and I wouldnt mind relying on Lundqvist and Montoya. I like those two the best anyway.

NYRangers is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 12:44 PM
  #4
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vedder19
With your glut of goaltenders to worry about (Weekes, Dunham,Montoya, Valiqutte) would you trade Blackburn, lets say to the Leafs? And what would you want for him ...reallistically of course.
The Rangers are certainly in a position where they can trade Blackburn (but there is no glut, even when you include Lundqvist), but how on earth could they get value for him considering his shoulder injury?

If healthy, he's a 21-year-old with substantial NHL experience and all the physical and mental tools to dominate atbe an elite NHL goalie. That's worth a ton, and frankly, I don't think the Leafs have the youth assets at this stage to deal for such a player...

But Blackburn isn't healthy. He's got a career threatening shoulder injury, and his waiver elgibility is about to dry up. The Leafs, or anyone really, would be very foolish to offer Sather anything close to Blackburn's full value, knowing full well that he might never recover his game after the injury, and that the Rangers may be forced to put him on waivers next season.

Personally I smell another Dan Cloutier sort of deal coming up. The Rangers will move him under pressure of losing him for nothing (as they feared they would during the expansion draft). As such, I think, at next years draft they'll move him in an attempt to move up/acquire more picks for the future. Possibly in a package (note I said PACKAGE, not for) Crosby, depending on where the Rangers end up drafting.

Still, at no point do I see the Leafs as a viable trading partner for someone like Blackburn. They just don't have the picks or prospects to really make it interesting.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:18 PM
  #5
BringGilmourBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,069
vCash: 500
Its true. No matter where you traded him, you wouldnt get full value beceause he is infact damaged goods. And to be honest its your teams own fault. I mean c'mon. You started him what when he was like 18years old. How many young goalies can do that. Fleury maybe. The Leafs could offr up players like Ponikarovsky, Antropov, Pilar, Berg, and maybe Kaberle, it it was a nice packaged deal involving more players.

BringGilmourBack is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:21 PM
  #6
BringGilmourBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,069
vCash: 500
Not to mention prospects like Bell, White, Harrison.

BringGilmourBack is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:32 PM
  #7
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,824
vCash: 50
Blackburn wouldn't net anything more than a bag of nachos with no cheese at this point. Better to hope that more than one of your blue-chippers pans out and then move one. Moving Blackburn now would be very risky, because the return would be nominal, and you'd hate to see him become a star elsewhere.

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:32 PM
  #8
Leetchie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 892
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leetchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vedder19
Its true. No matter where you traded him, you wouldnt get full value beceause he is infact damaged goods. And to be honest its your teams own fault. I mean c'mon. You started him what when he was like 18years old. How many young goalies can do that. Fleury maybe. The Leafs could offr up players like Ponikarovsky, Antropov, Pilar, Berg, and maybe Kaberle, it it was a nice packaged deal involving more players.
His injury was a weight-lifting injury. How does him starting as an 18-year old affect that in any way, shape, or form?

Leetchie is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:35 PM
  #9
BringGilmourBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetchie
His injury was a weight-lifting injury. How does him starting as an 18-year old affect that in any way, shape, or form?
Mentally of course. He was thrown into the fire. And at the time your team was one of the basement dwellers. The pressure was on him to turn your luck around. Unfortunately Sather(i think it was Sather at the time) gambled, and lost.

BringGilmourBack is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:36 PM
  #10
BringGilmourBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,069
vCash: 500
I hpe he can turn it around, hence my interest in him. I just don't think you'd get a huge return for him thats all

BringGilmourBack is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:41 PM
  #11
007
Olympic nut
 
007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vedder19
With your glut of goaltenders to worry about (Weekes, Dunham,Montoya, Valiqutte) would you trade Blackburn, lets say to the Leafs? And what would you want for him ...reallistically of course.
I notice that you've been checking around the boards on the trade-status of lots of young goalies. No faith in Tellqvist?

007 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:56 PM
  #12
BringGilmourBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007
I notice that you've been checking around the boards on the trade-status of lots of young goalies. No faith in Tellqvist?

None what so ever. IMO he's had plenty of oppurtunity to steal the back up job and hasn't been able too. I mean when you can't rip it away from T. Kidd, how good can you be? For years people were saying he couldn't play on NHL ice and they have been right. He hasn't made the adjustment yet, and it has been years. And if its any indication, i don't believe he played that wel at the WC. He was playing against NHL players and couldn't hack it. I don't care that a team like Canada is and was stacked. Other goaltenders could handle the load, so why not him. I just think his time is up.

BringGilmourBack is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:34 PM
  #13
NYR2
Registered User
 
NYR2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vedder19
Its true. No matter where you traded him, you wouldnt get full value beceause he is infact damaged goods. And to be honest its your teams own fault. I mean c'mon. You started him what when he was like 18years old. How many young goalies can do that. Fleury maybe.
What does starting him at 18 years old have anything to do with him getting hurt while working out two years later at 20 years old?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetchie
His injury was a weight-lifting injury. How does him starting as an 18-year old affect that in any way, shape, or form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vedder19
Mentally of course. He was thrown into the fire. And at the time your team was one of the basement dwellers. The pressure was on him to turn your luck around. Unfortunately Sather(i think it was Sather at the time) gambled, and lost.
Wait, so let me get this straight. Because he was thrown into the fire at 18 years old, that had an effect on him getting injured working out in the off season two years later? If that's what you're saying, that makes no sense.


Last edited by NYR2: 10-02-2004 at 03:39 PM.
NYR2 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:00 PM
  #14
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
As to the injury discussion. As others have stated, that was the definition of a 'freak' injury. Sure, the Rangers probably rushed him a bit. But one has nothing to do with the other.

As for a return... outside of Steen and Carlo, the Leafs, in my opinion, do not have a young player or prospect with nearly the upside of Blackburn. And the Rangers have several prospects I would rate as close to, or better, than those two, limiting NYR interest in them. While adding one or two more is always a good thing, Toronto would be insane to trade them away for an injured player. And the Rangers would be foolish to give away a blue-chipper for anything less.

It makes more sense for a team with a lot of high end prospects to take a 'gamble' on Blackburn and flip the Rangers a similarly gifted but dangerous player in return. Imagine if Blake Wheeler has an ugly year this season and Phoenix decides it needs a goalie of the future in a hurry? Or imagine if goaltending hungry LA decides it can move one of it's talented forward prospects, assuming Blackburn has a strong AHL return?

Either of those scenarios make a lot more sense than Toronto . . . they just don't have the assets to take any risks. They have to hold onto what they have left for dear life . . .

Actually if I were Toronto I'd look for a more 'middle aged' Goalie, given their veteran roster. If they wanted Dunham or Weeks, it wouldn't cost nearly as much, and it would make a lot more sense to have one of the vets backing up a 40-year-old Ed Belfour. Just my two cents . . .

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:15 PM
  #15
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I'm never even getting into another Blackburn discussion.

The Rangers {no matter what} are going to at least wait till next summer if they're gonna move anyone.

As it stands right now, Blackburn might not even back in December and will have approx. 4 or 5 months to make up for two years of lost time before he either has to make the team or clear waivers.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:03 PM
  #16
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I'm never even getting into another Blackburn discussion.

The Rangers {no matter what} are going to at least wait till next summer if they're gonna move anyone.

As it stands right now, Blackburn might not even back in December and will have approx. 4 or 5 months to make up for two years of lost time before he either has to make the team or clear waivers.
Didn't you hear the latest news? Blackburn saw the specialist recently and was told that things were progressing "slowly". He's not going to be re-evaluated until mid-Dec and until then he can't even participate in scrimmages much less games. So, right now, best case, he's able to play sometime in Feb.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/sp...tml?oref=login

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:05 PM
  #17
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 Brooklyn Ranger
Didn't you hear the latest news? Blackburn saw the specialist recently and was told that things were progressing "slowly". He's not going to be re-evaluated until mid-Dec and until then he can't even participate in scrimmages much less games. So, right now, best case, he's able to play sometime in Feb.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/sp...tml?oref=login
Well that's what I meant in the sense that he might not even be ready for December.

Either way I just don't see him in the Rangers long term plans.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:23 PM
  #18
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Well that's what I meant in the sense that he might not even be ready for December.

Either way I just don't see him in the Rangers long term plans.
I'm quite pessimist too, but the one positive scenario I can come up with is that Blackburn shows enough recovery this season to give him a chance to come back and be the NHL backup next season. Assuming Weekes does well enough to be re-signed (or some other veteran is signed or the season is completely wiped out and Weekes is re-signed), there is no reason why the Rangers can't keep Blackburn as the backup and play him in 35 games. But, of course, this assumes Blackburn gets healthy soon enough to get some meaningful playing time this season and also assumes he can get his timing back quickly enough to justify keeping him and playing him in the NHL next year. Those are huge assumptions at this point.

I've never been as big a fan of Blackburn as some here have been/are. But, I don't want to see this injury destroy his career. Time is slipping away and it's really too bad. He's a nice kid and like most nice kids, deserves to live out his dream.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:24 PM
  #19
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
I see no other option than to see him being traded next summer, right before his rights are lost. The more I think about it the more I feel that hes gone at the draft. Wether its to move up, add an extra pick, etc. Im not sure, but it makes the most sense. Then Lundqvist starts in Hartford and Montoya spends another year in Michigan. I actually also believe that if Lundqvist comes over and plays very well at whatever camp there is they might even be willing to bring him up with the big club as a backup. But Im not sure how the heirachy views that situation.

NYRangers is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:33 PM
  #20
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers
I see no other option than to see him being traded next summer, right before his rights are lost. The more I think about it the more I feel that hes gone at the draft. Wether its to move up, add an extra pick, etc. Im not sure, but it makes the most sense. Then Lundqvist starts in Hartford and Montoya spends another year in Michigan. I actually also believe that if Lundqvist comes over and plays very well at whatever camp there is they might even be willing to bring him up with the big club as a backup. But Im not sure how the heirachy views that situation.
If Blackburn doesn't have enough time this season to prove he's fully recovered, he will have no trade value and it's possible that no team will even take a chance on him if he's exposed to waivers. Then, the Rangers will have to decide if more time will help Blackburn or whether it's time to give up.

As for Lundqvist, I would surely hope that the Powers That Be will give him at least a little time in the minors to adjust his game to the smaller rinks and North American style of play. Lundqvist has proven that he can carry a team for both a season and a tournament and I think it would actually slow his adjustment down to only play every 3rd or 4th or 5th game as the NHL backup. If he plays well in the AHL, then I'd have no problem bringing him up during the season and playing him with the idea of seeing whether he's ready to become the starter the following season. But to start him off as a backup, doesn't seem the best way to find out what he can really do.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 06:17 PM
  #21
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I don't think Blackburn's career is done by any stretch, I just don't believe it will come to pass in NY.

Having said that, injury or not I think some team who isn't going anywhere and doesn't have as much depth in goal as the Rangers would take a shot on him during the waiver draft.

Of course having said that, the Rangers might be willing to take that gamble as well.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 10:00 AM
  #22
BringGilmourBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR2
What does starting him at 18 years old have anything to do with him getting hurt while working out two years later at 20 years old?





Wait, so let me get this straight. Because he was thrown into the fire at 18 years old, that had an effect on him getting injured working out in the off season two years later? If that's what you're saying, that makes no sense.

Wow, you really don't get what I'm saying? The pressure that was bestowed upon him (at such an early age, and stage of his career. I mean they expected this 18 year old to be this savior in net and turn their teams fortunes around) would be the backbreaker on his confidence.....hence his career. I wasn't talking of his freak injury. But didn't he also injure one of his knees as well?

Anyways, just wanted to say thank you for all the feedback. Its apparent that you don't believe the Leafs and Rangers would make good trading partners even with the likes of Antropov, Ponikarovsky, Kaberle, Pilar, Bell, White and Harrison on the block and available.

BringGilmourBack is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 10:34 AM
  #23
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,619
vCash: 500
I agree with those who say it is not the time to trade Blackburn. We have 3 potential #1 goalies in Lundqvist, Blackburn, and Montoya. 3 potential superstars some might argue. However, the key word is potential. When Buffalo had the same situation with Noronen, Biron, and Miller, they held onto all 3. Could you imagine the backlash if they trade Blackburn, he goes on to be an all-time great while Montoya becomes a journeyman back-up and Lundqvist never comes to North America? Give them their due time to show what they can do. Blackburn is only 21, Montoya is only 19, Lundqvist is only 22. It may be 5 or 6 years before we know which will be the best of the 3. We only need one to pan out, if they all do, their trade value will be that much higher, and may be able to bring back the final piece of the puzzle to make a run at winning it all. None of the 3 (especially Blackburn) can do that now.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 01:37 PM
  #24
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
I don't understand some people here. Why do you think the Rangers will trade Blackburn or anyone of their three goaltending stud prospects when they drafted Montoya just 4 months ago with the potential glut in mind. They WANT to have this problem this way they do not have much risk or concern for the most important position and hardest to develop.

in the hall is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 01:51 PM
  #25
NYR2
Registered User
 
NYR2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vedder19
Wow, you really don't get what I'm saying? The pressure that was bestowed upon him (at such an early age, and stage of his career. I mean they expected this 18 year old to be this savior in net and turn their teams fortunes around) would be the backbreaker on his confidence.....hence his career. I wasn't talking of his freak injury. But didn't he also injure one of his knees as well?
Gotcha. I personally don't think those two years will effect his confidence or mentality, he's just not the type of guy to get rattled like that. I never really saw that from him. All that was talked about him his first two years was how strong he is mentally and how he doesn't let things effect his game. I've seen so many people call him a bust already at 21 years old, I think they'll be eating their words a few years from now because I think he'll overcome this injury and get it together.

I don't know about the knee, I can't remember. The only other injury I do remember was a dislocated finger.

NYR2 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 02:55 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.