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

Bure Trade Revisited

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-08-2005, 12:48 PM
  #1
Frozen North
Healthy Scratch
 
Frozen North's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: OK
Country: United States
Posts: 1,135
vCash: 500
Bure Trade Revisited

Well, with it looking more and more like the season will be cancelled, I'd like to start looking at past trades that a lot of us said "give it a few years.." at the time of the trade.

So:



03/19/2002 - Updated 04:09 PM ET


Panthers trade Pavel Bure to Rangers

By Kevin Allen, USA TODAY


By Ed Bailey, AP
Pavel Bure had his first practice with the Rangers on Tuesday and will play for New York on Tuesday night.

The New York Rangers, needing to add sizzle to sputtering playoff aspirations, added the Russian Rocket to their mix Monday. Pavel Bure, one of the NHL's fastest and most dangerous scorers, was obtained from the Florida Panthers, along with a second-round pick, for journeyman defenseman Igor Ulanov, prospect defenseman Filip Novak, a first- and second-round pick this season and a fourth-round pick in 2003.




At the time, I was just thrilled to get rid of Ulanov. Discuss...

Frozen North is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:03 PM
  #2
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Duct tape on the titanic..

The really shiny, colorful, "fast" and yet inexpensive duct tape, but duct tape none the less.

We were all glad to see Ulanov gone, but Novak and the picks were more chips squandered on a non need.

Davisian is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:04 PM
  #3
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,326
vCash: 500
Awards:
In hindsight, it really seemes as though Sather could have got him for a lot less.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:05 PM
  #4
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
It was a deal that made perfect sense.

Igor Ulanov, Filip Novak, a first- and a flip of second-round picks and a fourth-round pick anyone would have done that deal. The fact that his career was ended by a thug is a whole other issue. What class organization did that felon play for?

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:10 PM
  #5
Leetchie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 892
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leetchie
18-Mar-02: New York Rangers traded Filip Novak, Igor Ulanov, a 1st round selection (later traded to Calgary - Eric Nystrom) in 2002, a 2nd round selection (Rob Globke) in 2002 and a 4th round selection in 2003 to the Florida Panthers for Pavel Bure and a 2nd round selection (Lee Falardeau) in 2002.


Yes, I do it over, over, and over again, every day of the week and twice no Sunday.

Don't you remember his 12 goals and 20 points in 12 games when he got here? Or how he rejuvinated the Big E?? He was worth that. Novak was a nicer prospect then than he is now.

Leetchie is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:13 PM
  #6
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
Igor Ulanov, Filip Novak, a first- and a flip of second-round picks and a fourth-round pick anyone would have done that deal. The fact that his career was ended by a thug is a whole other issue. What class organization did that felon play for?
But the thing is that we knew that he had problems with his knee before the trade went down. If he was a perfectly healthy player before we got him, then you would have a point. But that was the risk when we took him. It's like saying if it weren't for Doig, Lindros would have been a good pickup.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:15 PM
  #7
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetchie
Don't you remember his 12 goals and 20 points in 12 games when he got here? Or how he rejuvinated the Big E?? He was worth that. Novak was a nicer prospect then than he is now.
But where did that get us? Bure did play very well in a NYR jersey while he was healthy, but what good was it? No one short of Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr in their primes would have righted this ship at that time.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:20 PM
  #8
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetchie
Novak was a nicer prospect then than he is now.
Exactly, and those picks had great value then as well, since the rangers were in the basement.

Three very good assets that if they needed to be dealt, could have returned something to actually help the team and its future, instead of being squandered on former glory with a bad wing.

Davisian is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:22 PM
  #9
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Exactly, and those picks had great value then as well, since the rangers were in the basement.

Three very good assets that if they needed to be dealt, could have returned something to actually help the team and its future, instead of being squandered on former glory with a bad wing.
Perfectly said.

True Blue is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:59 PM
  #10
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 30,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
But the thing is that we knew that he had problems with his knee before the trade went down. If he was a perfectly healthy player before we got him, then you would have a point. But that was the risk when we took him. It's like saying if it weren't for Doig, Lindros would have been a good pickup.
Yes but it wasnt that bad. The prior 2 seasons before Bure was a Ranger he played 74 games and 82 games. In the 5 total seasons before he was a Ranger only one of those seasons he was on the injured list for pretty much the whole year the other 4 he played 82, 74, 63, 82 games. Its not like he was getting hurt every few months like when he was a Ranger.

I would do the trade all over again for IMO the best natural scorer in the league game then.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:01 PM
  #11
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 30,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Exactly, and those picks had great value then as well, since the rangers were in the basement.

Three very good assets that if they needed to be dealt, could have returned something to actually help the team and its future, instead of being squandered on former glory with a bad wing.
We werent rebuilding then. We were stacking up stars then that could put the puck in the net and go for the Stanley Cup. Nobody knew his career would end a year and a half later.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:13 PM
  #12
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
We werent rebuilding then. We were stacking up stars then that could put the puck in the net and go for the Stanley Cup.
And therein lay the problem. Anyone watching the Rangers in that and previous seasons saw that they should have been rebuilding, and any move under the guise of "stacking up for the cup" was comical at best.

Davisian is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:14 PM
  #13
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
We werent rebuilding then. We were stacking up stars then that could put the puck in the net and go for the Stanley Cup.
Shouldn't you have a playoff team before you load up for a Cup run?

Quote:
Nobody knew his career would end a year and a half later.
We knew it was a risk, given his history of knee problems. If it wasn't, we would've needed to give up a lot more than Ulanov, Novak, and a 1st.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:15 PM
  #14
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 Davisian
Exactly, and those picks had great value then as well, since the rangers were in the basement.

Three very good assets that if they needed to be dealt, could have returned something to actually help the team and its future, instead of being squandered on former glory with a bad wing.
It was a desperate move by a desperate man, trying to do anything to make the playoffs in New York. Sather couldn't decide whether to rebuild or to go for it, and he ended up half-assing it both ways.

But don't blame Bure for the Rangers missing the playoffs. The man did everything he could - 12 goals in 12 games, backchecked hard, skated hard all over the ice. Blame the rest of the team for disappearing instead of helping the Russian Rocket produce results. Let's face it - Nedved, Dvorak, and Fleury disappeared, and compounding that were the injury to Richter and throwing the 20 year old Blackburn in the middle of a playoff race with Leetch, Poti, Berard, Dave Karpa, Dale Purinton, and Peter Smrek as the guys in front of him; not exactly like Pronger, Stevens, Lidstrom and Chelios.

It was a medium-risk, high-reward type of move with little chance to succeed, but if Filip Novak is the best asset dealt (or even Eric Nystrom), it's not that bad a move.

Leetchie is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:17 PM
  #15
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 Davisian
And therein lay the problem. Anyone watching the Rangers in that and previous seasons saw that they should have been rebuilding, and any move under the guise of "stacking up for the cup" was comical at best.

I agree - but we blew any chance of that happening when we made the Lindros trade.

Leetchie is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:17 PM
  #16
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 30,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
Shouldn't you have a playoff team before you load up for a Cup run?



We knew it was a risk, given his history of knee problems. If it wasn't, we would've needed to give up a lot more than Ulanov, Novak, and a 1st.

Well when we got Bure I think the point getting him was to push us that extra step and try to get us into the playoffs. I think a lot of us could agree if we had ever gotten into the playoffs we would have caused some damage....just think all our superstars playing at 110% in the SAME game

Sometimes we have to take risks in order to get the the good stuff. We got unlucky and it didnt turn out for the best with us. Its like drafting a star that had gotten a concussion int he past (like Malkin i believe) its a risk but the Pens still took the chance.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:32 PM
  #17
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetchie
But don't blame Bure for the Rangers missing the playoffs.
Oh I don't. He did play very well in the games he was in and I had no complaints about his effort.

Same with Lindros..


But both were the wrong moves at the wrong time, and Sather should have paid the price for making them.

Davisian is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:52 PM
  #18
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Oh I don't. He did play very well in the games he was in and I had no complaints about his effort.

Same with Lindros..


But both were the wrong moves at the wrong time, and Sather should have paid the price for making them.
I dunno Davis . . . this deal was really a pre-curser to the collosal salary dumping that occured in anticipation of the current lockout. At the time, most thought that it was unfathomably stupid for the Panthers to make the deal, and even several years later, there aren't many assets lost that I'm crying about. Could Sather have gotten something better for the moderately well regarded Novak and that 9th overall pick? Sure. But if Bure's knee holds up and Richter finished the season, the playoff drought might have ended and Sather would have looked brilliant.

As for timing, I think this thread is a good idea, but it misses the real moment that the wheels came off the bus for Sather. The Lindros and Bure trades were noble efforts to jump-start the franchise. High reward, moderate risk, as another poster put it. Sather didn't have to give up much (other than MSG money) for two of the better players in the league, and if it had worked, he would have catapulted the franchise forward several years ahead of schedule. I fault his results, but not his effort or logic.

The real moment that things get dicey was the Dunham trade. At that point Lindros was playing like crap, Bure's knee was fragged by Danton, Leetch and Holik were both on extended injury absences, Richter's career was over, Bryan Trottier was a total disaster, and so was Kaspar, and the best player on the team was Tom Poti. If Sather had accepted defeat in that moment and started the fire-sale, then the Rangers banner draft year would have been 2003 (the big year) not 2004. Dion Phaneuf would likely be Rangers property, as would a host of other draft picks from that season. Furthermore, the Rangers would have been able to pick up a second strong draft class in 2004 after fielding a depleted younger roster pre-lockout... all-in-all, the franchise would be much better off than it is today.

Dunham's acquisition, even though it was probably a 'good' trade, was really the critical mistake. Dunham's solid, and at times outstanding play, kept Trottier on life-support for a few months, and even duped Sather into investing more time and effort (aquiring Carter and Kovalev) to bolster a totally flawed team and postpone the inevitable tear-down.

THAT is where Sather really needed to see where he was at. Bure and Lindros? Super-stars for Wall-Mart prices? Why not. Even years later, how broken up can you be about losing Filip Novak? Heck, in all those trades, the only guys I really want back are Kim Johnson and Mike York, and it's not like their franchise players or anything.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:53 PM
  #19
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
I think a lot of us could agree if we had ever gotten into the playoffs we would have caused some damage....just think all our superstars playing at 110% in the SAME game
We heard that mantra during the 7 non-playoff years. "If the Rangers get into the playoffs, they can do a lot of damage". My rebutal is that the team could not do "some damage" against Pittsburgh in a game that meant everything for the playoffs. What is it that makes you think that any "damage" could have been had in the playoffs? If the Rangers were really such a dangerous team, then they would have found a way to sneak into the 8th spot just one of those years. They could not and did not. Why? Because the team was just not good enough no matter how many broken down former superstars were added.
And, speaking of "damage", playoffs are a different game. What you need in the playoffs is unselfishness, good defense, and solid goaltending. All things that the Rangers were lacking. Had they somehow snuck into the playoffs, playing an antiquated Edmonton-hey day era pond hockey would have found them swept out of the first round.

"Sometimes we have to take risks in order to get the the good stuff. We got unlucky and it didnt turn out for the best with us. Its like drafting a star that had gotten a concussion int he past (like Malkin i believe) its a risk but the Pens still took the chance."

It was blatanlty obvious that the team needed to be gutted and rebuilt after 1997. Risks you can take if you have a foundation. The Rangers had no foundation. Taking a risk on a high-end prospect who has had a concussion whey you are Pittsburgh is not the same thing as taken a broken down player by a team that cannot find a way to sneak into the 8th spot.

True Blue is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:55 PM
  #20
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Oh I don't. He did play very well in the games he was in and I had no complaints about his effort.

Same with Lindros..


But both were the wrong moves at the wrong time, and Sather should have paid the price for making them.
Agreed.

How the hell do you justify that trade? We were no where near a playoff team,our goals against were atrocious, what we needed was a new defense and new coach. Bure was just another scorer added when scoring was not the issue.

The younger Ranger fans don't know, but for years thats all this club has done.

'Defense is bad? Thats ok, we'll go on the offensive !' Yeah great plan, who was our GM Dick Cheney?

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 02:57 PM
  #21
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
Heck, in all those trades, the only guys I really want back are Kim Johnson and Mike York, and it's not like their franchise players or anything.
You cannot use hindsight 20/20 here. At the time of the trade, all of those prospects had much higher value. Heck, even Hlavac's value was at an all-time high. There were better things to be had that could have helped the organization besides broken down players.
And let's not forget the draft picks that Sather gave up with all of those trades.

True Blue is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 03:37 PM
  #22
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetchie
I agree - but we blew any chance of that happening when we made the Lindros trade.
the Bure deal can not be viewed in a vacum. I can't believe people are crying about us not having Filip Novak or Eric Nystrom. Tell me we missed out on Bobby Nystrom and maybe I agree with you. Eric?
Tom Poti playing left wing! I don't spend my nights awake thinking "we coulda been a contender, if wez only had Eric Nystrom!"

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 03:52 PM
  #23
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
the Bure deal can not be viewed in a vacum. I can't believe people are crying about us not having Filip Novak or Eric Nystrom.
That isn't the point. None of these deals can be viewed strictly from today's standpoint. At the time of the trade, Novak's value was higher. Thus, instead of adding another broken down former star, that asset could have been used to acquire something the organization needed. And again, like in the Lindros trade, yet another draft pick was given away. For a team with not much on the farm, don't you think that the draft pick could have proven useful?

True Blue is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 04:05 PM
  #24
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Tb..

don't be real sure of Novak's value. I think the Rangers Brass had gotten a little cold on Novak, and I'm not sure he's really flourished since. What his trade value to the outside world is not currently known by me.

Kubera, you make some really good points, although at the time of the Bure acquisition, many of us recognized that his knees were a huge problem and there was a chance he wasn't going to play for any significant amount of time. I think the Board was about split 50/50 in terms of liking the risk/reward at the time.

Lindros...again, another gamble. If he didn't get another concussion, the trade probably would've been a good one. But, I think most posters did decide to play doctor and believed he would get another concussion. I didn't mind too much getting Lindros (and wasn't in love with the players going the other way), but Sather paid too much because it wasn't moderate risk, it was high risk.

Fletch is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 04:13 PM
  #25
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
And again, like in the Lindros trade, yet another draft pick was given away. For a team with not much on the farm, don't you think that the draft pick could have proven useful?
True, and considering how, from day one, Sather whined about what Smith left on the farm, it was farcical for him to trade young assets on an older player with a terrible injury history. (You may choose to discuss either Lindros or Bure here.)

A trade I hated then and time has revealed it to be worse, not better.

dedalus 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 03:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.