HFBoards

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

Rangers - Oilers Proposal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-18-2005, 09:45 PM
  #1
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Rangers - Oilers Proposal

Well I think Lundmark needs a change. I think if we deal him to Edmonton he will be motivated to play since he is from their. So here is my proposal.

To Edmonton: D Karel Rachunek + C/LW Jamie Lundmark + Purinton

To Rangers: LW Ethan Moreau and LW Jani Rita

Reason for Oilers to do this, they can use another vet dman, at Rachunek is only 24 years old. Lundmark is better suited in the Western Conference and would thrive playing in the city that he grew up in.

Reason for Rangers to do this, they get 2 LW one who is gritty and has size and a leader for the young kids, and another LW that also need a change and has potential like Lundmark. Sather drafted Rita in 99 I believe.

What you guys think?

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 09:51 PM
  #2
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Why would we do that?

We have 565 billion 3rd/4th line prospects and a bunch are ready to play.

Rachuneck has a lot of potential IMO. I don't like him that much, but I like where he could end up.

....and who wants Purinton?

NYRangers is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:00 PM
  #3
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,428
vCash: 500
NO.

Lundmark for Rita? Sure. They want Purinton? I doubt it. I'm not throwing in a potential top 4 d-man for an old 3rd liner who could easily be found as a UFA. Let's let Rachunek prove himself out there. We could then decide to keep or deal him. He's the most valuable player here IMHO.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:07 PM
  #4
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
To EDM: Dale Purinton
To NYR: 2 Bags of Pucks and a dozen heating pads.


Seems fair in my view.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:09 PM
  #5
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Ok, well I can understand Purinton and Lundmark, I don't understand this hatred for Rachunek. I mean c'mon, this is kid who was a top 4 in Ottawa, a team consistently one of the top 10 in the league, a defence ranger fans would kill for and yet he's not good enough for the Rangers? Let's remember it was a mere 20+ games he played, and most with Thomas Pock, a kid fresh out of college, one known more for this offence then his defence, so let's not panic, he's young, smart and skilled, beleive me, I know of a good ton of Ottawa fans who still curse the deVries deal

rnyquist is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:10 PM
  #6
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
To EDM: Dale Purinton
To NYR: 2 Bags of Pucks and a dozen heating pads.


Seems fair in my view.
those heating pads are expensize, esp. if you get those full body jobs with the massagers. I say cut that down to half a dozen and throw in a draft pick on the rangers side, then maybe Edm. would listen.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:16 PM
  #7
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
NO.

Lundmark for Rita? Sure. They want Purinton? I doubt it. I'm not throwing in a potential top 4 d-man for an old 3rd liner who could easily be found as a UFA. Let's let Rachunek prove himself out there. We could then decide to keep or deal him. He's the most valuable player here IMHO.

Moreau signed a 4 year deal with the Oilers on Sept 11 2003. He wont be an ufa for a few more years. And Rita is not that bad. He is better than Lundmark at this point. And is a natural LW.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/player_b...96&hubName=EDM
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/player_b...21&hubName=EDM

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:17 PM
  #8
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Moreau signed a 4 year deal with the Oilers on Sept 11 2003. He wont be an ufa for a few more years. And Rita is not that bad. He is better than Lundmark at this point. And is a natural LW.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/player_b...96&hubName=EDM
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/player_b...21&hubName=EDM
I got blasted one time for using those TSN scouting reports to support my case...so just get ready to hear it. I do agree with you though Ort.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:18 PM
  #9
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Moreau signed a 4 year deal with the Oilers on Sept 11 2003. He wont be an ufa for a few more years. And Rita is not that bad. He is better than Lundmark at this point. And is a natural LW.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/player_b...96&hubName=EDM
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/player_b...21&hubName=EDM
Rita MAY be better then Lundmark...neither have shown me that much. I didnt mean Moreau in particular, but that type of guy. Your telling me we cant just sign a good 3rd liner to a two year deal? Why in heavens name would we lose Rachunek for that? I still say he's the best player in the deal.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:20 PM
  #10
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
Rita MAY be better then Lundmark...neither have shown me that much. I didnt mean Moreau in particular, but that type of guy. Your telling me we cant just sign a good 3rd liner to a two year deal? Why in heavens name would we lose Rachunek for that? I still say he's the best player in the deal.
I like the guys that Ort. is proposing we trade for...BUT, i still wanna give Rachunek more time to show us what he can do. I think he has a lot of potential, and IS already ready to perform at a high level.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:26 PM
  #11
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
I didn't have to open the thread to know we'd be giving up talent for some dime a dozen grinder.

in the hall is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:30 PM
  #12
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
havent seen ya in a few days, in the hall, missed ya, lol

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:35 PM
  #13
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall
I didn't have to open the thread to know we'd be giving up talent for some dime a dozen grinder.

Moreau did score 20 goals for the Oilers last year and why would Oilers sign him to a 4 year deal, if he is a dime a dozen grinder. Yea he may be a grinder but very valuable to Oilers, but he has leadership and Sather did trade for him in the past. They key to the deal is Lundmark and Rita. We can use Moreau leadership qualities, maybe put him on a line with Holik and Giroux, we can have a real checking line for once.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:38 PM
  #14
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Moreau did score 20 goals for the Oilers last year and why would Oilers sign him to a 4 year deal, if he is a dime a dozen grinder. Yea he may be a grinder but very valuable to Oilers, but he has leadership and Sather did trade for him in the past. They key to the deal is Lundmark and Rita. We can use Moreau leadership qualities, maybe put him on a line with Holik and Giroux, we can have a real checking line for once.
the players you are asking for are nice players, i just wouldnt trade Rachunek.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:39 PM
  #15
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20
the players you are asking for are nice players, i just wouldnt trade Rachunek.
Same. Rachunek will be a good player in a season or 2 with the Rangers.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:42 PM
  #16
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Same. Rachunek will be a good player in a season or 2 with the Rangers.
hes already a top 4 dman for this team right now. and he can only get better.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:44 PM
  #17
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Alright guys...I asked the people that would know the most about Rachunek....Senator fans. Here is the thread I started on there board: http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=124566

I dont know how much of them will respond to it or not but we should get some better info considering they saw him play almost the entire season.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:45 PM
  #18
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Alright guys...I asked the people that would know the most about Rachunek....Senator fans. Here is the thread I started on there board: http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=124566

I dont know how much of them will respond to it or not but we should get some better info considering they saw him play almost the entire season.
nice, good idea FLY. I'll be sure to keep up with this, and if they post anything substantial, let us know about it.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 10:51 PM
  #19
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
So far one positive:

I still think he has great potential as an NHL defenseman. I think he's doing pretty good over in Europe the last time I checked too.

I honestly think he can become a very good #3 defenseman.


And one Negative:


Rachunek lacks hockey sense. He makes bad decisions at key times. If he playes with a good defenseman like Redden when he was here to make up for his lack of hockey senses Rachunek should be able to get around 40 points. You are always left wanting more from Rachunek.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 11:20 PM
  #20
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20
So far one positive:

I still think he has great potential as an NHL defenseman. I think he's doing pretty good over in Europe the last time I checked too.

I honestly think he can become a very good #3 defenseman.


And one Negative:


Rachunek lacks hockey sense. He makes bad decisions at key times. If he playes with a good defenseman like Redden when he was here to make up for his lack of hockey senses Rachunek should be able to get around 40 points. You are always left wanting more from Rachunek.
Sounds like another Malakhov . We always wanted more from Malakhov and we know what happend. I would have asked for Volchenkov even if it meant throwing in Lundmark in the De Vries deal.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 11:42 PM
  #21
Onion Boy
Registered User
 
Onion Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: Japan
Posts: 2,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Sounds like another Malakhov . We always wanted more from Malakhov and we know what happend. I would have asked for Volchenkov even if it meant throwing in Lundmark in the De Vries deal.
Even with Lundmark, I doubt Ottawa makes that deal. Volchenkov is a solid, hard-hitting d-man who can only get better. The exact type of player any team would want.

With regard to the original deal, I'm all for trading Lundmark while he still has a semblance of potential left in him, but I'd only be interested in deals where he was the biggest asset we were giving up. Rachunek played poorly in his short stint, but I'm willing to wait a season or two to see how he rebounds.

Onion Boy is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 11:46 PM
  #22
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Sounds like another Malakhov . We always wanted more from Malakhov and we know what happend. I would have asked for Volchenkov even if it meant throwing in Lundmark in the De Vries deal.
the thing with Malakhov was that he wasnt young when we got him. and he had unreal talent and showed it at one point in his career, but then just dogged it for whatever reason. it was already known that he was an underachiever when we aquired him. he was just one of many poor moves that we made.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 11:48 PM
  #23
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjb3599
Even with Lundmark, I doubt Ottawa makes that deal. Volchenkov is a solid, hard-hitting d-man who can only get better. The exact type of player any team would want.

With regard to the original deal, I'm all for trading Lundmark while he still has a semblance of potential left in him, but I'd only be interested in deals where he was the biggest asset we were giving up. Rachunek played poorly in his short stint, but I'm willing to wait a season or two to see how he rebounds.
Sather could have gotten something other than a dman, we could have dealt for another LW in the De Vries deal. I know we got Giroux but we lack LW.

Poti Rachunek Kasper Tyutin Kondratiev Lampman Purinton Strudwick Marshall Pock

We got lot of dman that should be in the NHL but only 6 spots. I still think Sather should have dealt for a LW.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 11:50 PM
  #24
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20
the thing with Malakhov was that he wasnt young when we got him. and he had unreal talent and showed it at one point in his career, but then just dogged it for whatever reason. it was already known that he was an underachiever when we aquired him. he was just one of many poor moves that we made.

yea over Schneider an allstar who wanted to play for the Rangers and did much better by a long shot. I bet Sather chose Malakhov cause he was bigger. I still cant figure out why Sather chose Malakhov over Schneider.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
01-18-2005, 11:52 PM
  #25
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
yea over Schneider an allstar who wanted to play for the Rangers and did much better by a long shot. I bet Sather chose Malakhov cause he was bigger. I still cant figure out why Sather chose Malakhov over Schneider.
oh man, i just remember when schneider stepped up in the absence of Leetch that one year and played so well. I will never for the life of me, understand why we got rid of Schnider . Just did not make sense...but i guess that is over and done with now....

Balej20* 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 10:54 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.