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

Just an idea...If NYR gets S.Crosby

View Poll Results: If the deal is there move Crosby or still keep.....
Keep #1 overall pick no matter the deal 60 72.29%
If the deal is fair or good/excellent make the move 22 26.51%
Dont know, not sure. 1 1.20%
Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-08-2005, 01:08 AM
  #26
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
Not quite at Gretzky or lemieux level at that age my friend, but better than Lindros at that age offensively, more creative, and makes other players better than Eric did! Is that specific enough for you. None of those players were ever called the best he ever saw by Gretzky either. I would think he knows just a little bit more than you or I! As for the trade, I'd rather see the Rangers suck with Crosby than with a group of lesser prospects. Either way it will be a while before we are serious playoff contenders again, and there will be plenty of draft picks to pin our hopes on.
This is the highest rated player since Gretzky retired. I seriously doubt Gretzky would say something like that about someone coming into the league while he was still there. Besides, exactly what kinds of chances did Wayne have to see Lindros when he was busy playing every year into the playoffs?

And you really are forgetting the hype around Lindros.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 03:26 AM
  #27
Burberry Manning
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Summit NJ-The Elite
Country: United States
Posts: 2,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Do you mean other than THN who called him the best player not playing in the NHL? His development wasn't a "fluke." Plenty of people knew he had a chance to be an outstanding player, even if you didn't.


Did Quebec make out better?
1. They won two Cups
2. The Rangers aren't interested in a new arena, so that as a Crosby selling point doesn't interest me.
3. The Avalanche have been a Western power since. Well I guess we should make that an NHL power, since they've actually WON championships.

And as long as you've brought up the issue of flukes and their roles in the successes of these teams, you seem to forget or ignore the flukes on the Flyers side which played a role in their success, not least is the 19 goal scorer that Clarke acquired who turned into a 50 goal scorer. Lest we forget, Eric Desjardins was the key to the first Montreal Recchi trade. John LeClair was a widebody with decent hands who'd never scored 20 goals in his career.

Finally I can't help but laugh at your attempts to dismiss Steve Duchesne, Ron Hextall, Chris Simon, Mike Ricci, and 2 first round picks as "all that stuff" as if they played no role in Colorado's success. "All that stuff" is the single biggest reason that Colorado was able to acquire the HoF goalie you mention so prominently in your post.


And I'll take the same MSG they currently play in, a decade of league dominance, and two championships.

And in taking all that I'll thank the hockey gods that you're not running the Rangers.
You can maintain the argument that Philly never won the Cup and Quebec won 2 but that would be ignoring alot of other influences and you know it. Quebec just happened to have the best goaltender of all-time, just happened to have another top 10 center in Joe Sakic, and just happened to have one of the better defenses in the NHL. Not to mention they just happened to have the ability to develop stars almost at will (tanguay, kamensky for a while, Hedjuk, Drury, ect.). I know this analogy will be picked apart and I don't mean for it to be taken to literally but to attribute Colorado's cup victories to the Lindros trade would be like attributing the Devil's cups to the Stevens trade....yes, they certainly helped but there was alot more to it. That trade with Philly certainly gave them a nice foundation for success but it wasn't the ultimate factor that put them into the league's elite for so long. And I argue it WAS Eric Lindros that put the Flyers into the league's elite for some time. It wasn't Eric's fault he never had a goaltender in Philly.


I'll take the best player in any deal, especially at 18 years old.

I'd also love to see the Garden rennovated or rebuilt

Burberry Manning is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 03:57 AM
  #28
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeding blue
You can maintain the argument that Philly never won the Cup and Quebec won 2 but that would be ignoring alot of other influences and you know it. Quebec just happened to have the best goaltender of all-time
and quebec got thibault in the lindros deal and then turned around and used him as the centerpeice in the deal to land patrick roy...so indirectly the lindros deal got them patrick roy and without the lindros deal they probably never get him.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 08:10 AM
  #29
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
And you really are forgetting the hype around Lindros.
Exactly. How quick some people are to forget the "Next One" hype. Coming into the league, Lindros had the most hype of anyone since Lemiuex. And let's call a spade a spade here, for all of his injuries, Lindros was the single most dominant player on the ice for a long, long time. Did not help him win the Cup, now did it?

NYFAN,

Seeing this,

"As for the trade, I'd rather see the Rangers suck with Crosby than with a group of lesser prospects."

I want to ask you a simple question. Are you telling all of us, that knowing how everything unfolded, if you were to go back in time and you were Clarke, would you do the same trade over again? Everything that I read from you makes it seem that, yes you would. So now, I just want a straight answer from you.
While you would rather the Rangers sucked with Crosby, I would rather the Rangers were winning Cups with Joe Shmoe as their center.

"Quebec just happened to have the best goaltender of all-time"

Obtained due to some of the assets acquired in the Lindros trade.

"just happened to have another top 10 center in Joe Sakic"

Let's not forget that Quebec also traded away BOTH Owen Nolan and Mats Sundin.

"and just happened to have one of the better defenses in the NHL"

All started by obtaining Huffman and Duchesne.

"Not to mention they just happened to have the ability to develop stars almost at will (tanguay, kamensky for a while, Hedjuk, Drury, ect.). "

None of those players hold a candle to Forsberg.

"to attribute Colorado's cup victories to the Lindros trade would be like attributing the Devil's cups to the Stevens trade....yes, they certainly helped but there was alot more to it."

I don't know how much more to it there is. Or do you think that without Stevens, the Devils still win all those Cups? Stevens is not the only reason that they won, but he is the biggest. By far.

"That trade with Philly certainly gave them a nice foundation for success but it wasn't the ultimate factor that put them into the league's elite for so long."

How do you figure? All of the assets that they acquired in the trade were turned into the foundation of the powerhouse that Colarado is today. To the point that they are still reaping the benefits of that trade. Or did you not notice Forsberg playing?

"And I argue it WAS Eric Lindros that put the Flyers into the league's elite for some time."

Are you telling us that the Flyers would not have been successful with Forsberg & Ricci, instead of just Lindros? Not to mention the other 4 players, PLUS two first round picks. I find it hard to believe that anyone would say that they would not have had success.

"It wasn't Eric's fault he never had a goaltender in Philly."

Nope...not his fault. Howeve, had it not been Lindros, but had been Forsberg, Ricci, Huffman, Duchesne, Simon & two first round picks, it could have easily been the Flyers that ended up with Roy.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 10:08 AM
  #30
bmoak
Registered User
 
bmoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,636
vCash: 500
This is all moot anyway. No one is going to offer a Lindros-like deal. That's just not going to happen anymore.

The "good deal" proposed in the OP is not a good one at all. Trading a #1 overall in a year with a 100% consensus on who that pick will be for unproven assets (2 prospects, top 5 pick, 2nd rounder) doesn't seem like sound risk management.

Nothing's certain in hockey, not even Crosby. But the odds of him succeeding are much higher than a player taken a few spots later, and even so, few of those players project to first line franchise centers. Two prospects? Define "Top" . If the Rangers came offering Tutin and Jessiman as their package for Crosby, I'd laugh in their face. How about Parise and Zajac? (assuming the Devs trade up in the draft) They're highly rated. Not many teams have multiple "sure thing" prospects to trade. 2nd rounders are nothing in a deal like this, as it's 50/50 the pick even makes it to the NHL, much less becmomes a qulaity player.

The Lindros offers included more than just picks and prosepcts (although the best player in the deal turned out to be a prospect): they were built around young, proven NHL talent. If the BlueJackets come around looking for Crosby, don't start talking to them about propsects, ask for Rick Nash.

bmoak is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 10:41 AM
  #31
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
You don't trade Crosby unless your getting an amazing offer. It would have to be such a great offer that you would have to be blatantly getting the better deal. Noone want's to be the guy that traded a guy who could be the next big star for a couple 2nd liners and some picks that went nowhere.

The Rangers would have to be getting such an amazing deal including a young star like AO, plus a top 6 guy like Semin, Mike Green, and 2 first rounders. Thats what it would take and no way does Washington make that trade. Crosby will be picked by whoever gets that pick.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 10:51 AM
  #32
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Exactly. How quick some people are to forget the "Next One" hype. Coming into the league, Lindros had the most hype of anyone since Lemiuex. And let's call a spade a spade here, for all of his injuries, Lindros was the single most dominant player on the ice for a long, long time. Did not help him win the Cup, now did it?

NYFAN,

Seeing this,

"As for the trade, I'd rather see the Rangers suck with Crosby than with a group of lesser prospects."

I want to ask you a simple question. Are you telling all of us, that knowing how everything unfolded, if you were to go back in time and you were Clarke, would you do the same trade over again? Everything that I read from you makes it seem that, yes you would. So now, I just want a straight answer from you.
While you would rather the Rangers sucked with Crosby, I would rather the Rangers were winning Cups with Joe Shmoe as their center.

"Quebec just happened to have the best goaltender of all-time"

Obtained due to some of the assets acquired in the Lindros trade.

"just happened to have another top 10 center in Joe Sakic"

Let's not forget that Quebec also traded away BOTH Owen Nolan and Mats Sundin.

"and just happened to have one of the better defenses in the NHL"

All started by obtaining Huffman and Duchesne.

"Not to mention they just happened to have the ability to develop stars almost at will (tanguay, kamensky for a while, Hedjuk, Drury, ect.). "

None of those players hold a candle to Forsberg.

"to attribute Colorado's cup victories to the Lindros trade would be like attributing the Devil's cups to the Stevens trade....yes, they certainly helped but there was alot more to it."

I don't know how much more to it there is. Or do you think that without Stevens, the Devils still win all those Cups? Stevens is not the only reason that they won, but he is the biggest. By far.

"That trade with Philly certainly gave them a nice foundation for success but it wasn't the ultimate factor that put them into the league's elite for so long."

How do you figure? All of the assets that they acquired in the trade were turned into the foundation of the powerhouse that Colarado is today. To the point that they are still reaping the benefits of that trade. Or did you not notice Forsberg playing?

"And I argue it WAS Eric Lindros that put the Flyers into the league's elite for some time."

Are you telling us that the Flyers would not have been successful with Forsberg & Ricci, instead of just Lindros? Not to mention the other 4 players, PLUS two first round picks. I find it hard to believe that anyone would say that they would not have had success.

"It wasn't Eric's fault he never had a goaltender in Philly."

Nope...not his fault. Howeve, had it not been Lindros, but had been Forsberg, Ricci, Huffman, Duchesne, Simon & two first round picks, it could have easily been the Flyers that ended up with Roy.
Are you really going to try and compare Philly at the time of the Lindros trade, to the current state of the Rangers? This organization has been a horror show for over 7 seasons and finally bottomed out last season! We currently have quite a few prospects and draft picks to look forward to,and since we already know we are bad, and already have several picks stockpiled,if we got the first pick, we should take Crosby and continue our current strategy. I don't think thats a bad decision at all,having a great player his entire career instead of signing him on the downside after he is past his prime. If , if ,if.....if the Rangers were better at drafting players we wouln't be debating this. If we drafted Crosby, we still would suck, and have plenty of future picks to get better! I know it will take time to get better, and I would rather keep Crosby, than trade him for more prospects at this point. Now if anyone is interested in Jagr for some top prospects....I'm all ears even though I like the guy!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 10:53 AM
  #33
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Just thought I'd add, the Rangers aren't winning a cup with Joe Schmoe at center! They will need a dominant one, just like every other Stanley cup team.

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 10:58 AM
  #34
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Lemme just tell you, since I haven't let on my stance yet, that I don't trade the Crosby pick. Not unless I'm being offered a number 1, or potential number 1, center in the deal. We are talking about the Rangers biggest organizational weakness in terms of prospects.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 11:02 AM
  #35
Tuggy
Homer glasses on
 
Tuggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Saint John
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,705
vCash: 1484
Crosby is the highest rated and most hyped prospect in a very long time. No way any team trades him away.

Tuggy is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 11:31 AM
  #36
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
Are you really going to try and compare Philly at the time of the Lindros trade, to the current state of the Rangers? This organization has been a horror show for over 7 seasons and finally bottomed out last season! We currently have quite a few prospects and draft picks to look forward to,and since we already know we are bad, and already have several picks stockpiled,if we got the first pick, we should take Crosby and continue our current strategy. I don't think thats a bad decision at all,having a great player his entire career instead of signing him on the downside after he is past his prime. If , if ,if.....if the Rangers were better at drafting players we wouln't be debating this. If we drafted Crosby, we still would suck, and have plenty of future picks to get better! I know it will take time to get better, and I would rather keep Crosby, than trade him for more prospects at this point. Now if anyone is interested in Jagr for some top prospects....I'm all ears even though I like the guy!
Everything you just said did not address the question I asked you.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 12:34 PM
  #37
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Everything you just said did not address the question I asked you.
Would I make the deal for Lindros knowing what I know now? Obviously not! But what is your point. I can also say ,that if Lindros never took that hit from Stevens, I would make that trade again!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 01:20 PM
  #38
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
I can also say ,that if Lindros never took that hit from Stevens, I would make that trade again!
So, had it not been for the Stevens, you would trade Forsberg, Ricci, Simon, Huffman, Duchesne, Hextall & two first round picks for Lindros? Yes or no.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 01:32 PM
  #39
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
So, had it not been for the Stevens, you would trade Forsberg, Ricci, Simon, Huffman, Duchesne, Hextall & two first round picks for Lindros? Yes or no.
Yes I would, we had no idea how good Forsberg would be, and he was better than all of them before the head injuries! Alot of people seem to forget just how dominant a healthy Lindros was.


Season Team GP G A P +/- PIM PP SH GW GT Shots Pct
1992-1993 Flyers 61 41 34 75 28 147 8 1 5 1 180 22.8
1993-1994 Flyers 65 44 53 97 16 103 13 2 9 1 197 22.3
1994-1995 Flyers 46 29 41 70 27 60 7 0 4 1 144 20.1
1995-1996 Flyers 73 47 68 115 26 163 15 0 4 0 294 16
1996-1997 Flyers 52 32 47 79 31 136 9 0 7 2 198 16.2
1997-1998 Flyers 63 30 41 71 14 134 10 1 4 0 202 14.9
1998-1999 Flyers 71 40 53 93 35 120 10 1 2 3 242 16.5
1999-2000 Flyers 55 27 32 59 11 83 10 1 2 1 187 14.4
2001-2002 Rangers 72 37 36 73 19 138 12 1 4 0 196 18.9
2002-2003 Rangers 81 19 34 53 5 141 9 0 3 0 235 8.1
2003-2004 Rangers 39 10 22 32 7 60 3 0 0 0 83 12

NHL Totals 678 356 461 817 219 1,285 106 7 44 9 2,158 16.5

Career Playoff Stats
Season Team GP G A P +/- PIM PP SH GW GT Shots Pct
1994-1995 Flyers 12 4 11 15 7 18 0 0 1 0 28 14.3
1995-1996 Flyers 12 6 6 12 -1 43 3 0 2 0 46 13
1996-1997 Flyers 19 12 14 26 7 40 4 0 1 0 71 16.9
1997-1998 Flyers 5 1 2 3 -3 17 0 0 0 0 13 7.7
1999-2000 Flyers 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33.3

NHL Totals 50 24 33 57 10 118 7 0 4 1 161 14.9


Gotta say I don't think Forsberg would have been near as good on the Flyers!


Last edited by NYFAN: 03-08-2005 at 01:48 PM.
NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 01:48 PM
  #40
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
Yes I would, we had no idea how good Forsberg would be, and he was better than all of them before the head injuries! Alot of people seem to forget just how dominant a healthy Lindros was.
Guess we can break this down into several points.

1. I cannot believe that you would make one of the most lopsided trades in history all over again. That is like giving Custer a second chance at Little Big Horn, and having him use the same exact stragegy.
2. YOU may not have had any idea of how good Forsberg was, but the rest of the hockey world did. Forsberg was thought of as being a special player for a long time before the Lindros trade. That he turned out as good as he has is surprising no one, save you. He was one of the most highly regarded prospects in all of hockey at the time of the trade.
3. A completely healthy Lindros sure was dominant. But better than Forsberg? Utterly debateable. And a completely healthy Lindros did not get Philly the Cup, now did he?

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 01:54 PM
  #41
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
OK, I'm sorry... but I have to side with TrueBlue on this one.

Without Forsberg, I'm not sure Colorado wins their 2 Cups. Forsberg is considered to be a top 5, if not the number 1 player in the league.

Without Ricci, Colorado doesn't win either of their Cups. The first one because he was there, and the second one because he was traded for the pick that ended up being Tanguay.

Without Simon, Colorado doesn't win their first Cup. Simon was trade for Keith Jones, and Keith Jones was traded for Shjon Podein, who was an intergral part of the Avalanche's second Cup.

Without Philly's first round choice, which Quebec used for Thibault, they don't get Roy and Colorado doesn't win either Cup.

Wihtout Steve Duschene, the Avs don't trade for Garth Butcher and Ron Sutter, who they then don't trade for Uwe Krupp, Claude Lemieux (via Wendel Clark) or Sylvain Lefebvre. Without whom Colorado doesn't win their first Cup. And they don't trade for Ray Bourque and Dave Andreychuk (via Brian Rolston) either... and thus don't win their second Cup.

Without Hextall, the Avalanche don't have Adam Deadmarsh.

And two Cups in Philly would've gotten them a new arena and all the publicity and star power that Lindros bought.

I'm sorry, but this deal is one of the worst trades in NHL history.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 02:02 PM
  #42
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Guess we can break this down into several points.

1. I cannot believe that you would make one of the most lopsided trades in history all over again. That is like giving Custer a second chance at Little Big Horn, and having him use the same exact stragegy.
2. YOU may not have had any idea of how good Forsberg was, but the rest of the hockey world did. Forsberg was thought of as being a special player for a long time before the Lindros trade. That he turned out as good as he has is surprising no one, save you. He was one of the most highly regarded prospects in all of hockey at the time of the trade.
3. A completely healthy Lindros sure was dominant. But better than Forsberg? Utterly debateable. And a completely healthy Lindros did not get Philly the Cup, now did he?
No , he didn't! I still like Lindros the un injured player, better than Forsberg, that's not a knock on Forsberg, just my preference for the type of player! Yes it wound up being a lopsided deal, but lets not get carried away. The reasons behind who won cups don't start and end with Forsberg and Ricci, any more than Lindros is at fault for not winning a cup in Philly! It takes the entire team to win a cup! Either way that draft went, both teams got very good players, the way it played out, no one could have predicted that! Besides, I don't think Forsberg was a good fit for Philly.

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 02:07 PM
  #43
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
No , he didn't! I still like Lindros the un injured player, better than Forsberg, that's not a knock on Forsberg, just my preference for the type of player! Yes it wound up being a lopsided deal, but lets not get carried away. The reasons behind who won cups don't start and end with Forsberg and Ricci, any more than Lindros is at fault for not winning a cup in Philly! It takes the entire team to win a cup! Either way that draft went, both teams got very good players, the way it played out, no one could have predicted that! Besides, I don't think Forsberg was a good fit for Philly.
Actually, I did predict that on the day of the trade. I was also extremely happy the Rangers did not end up with him at the time.

Also, Forsberg would've been a good fit in Philly because the Flyers would've built around him. Definitely in a different way than they did with Lindros, because he's a different kind of player. They wouldn't have had the hard-hitting style of play necessarily.

It doesn't end with Forsberg and Ricci... but if you look at the rest of the trade as well, then you see that Colorado NEVER wins these Cups without making the deal they did. And if Philadelphia hadn't made that trade, they would've had the assets to add the pieces they needed like Colorado/Quebec did.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 02:11 PM
  #44
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
You know what... I think I have to change my stance. If we get offered a Lindros-like deal, I think you gotta take it.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 02:22 PM
  #45
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Who are you miss Cleo? No one knew how Lindros's career was going to wind up. As far as Philly building a different team around Forsberg, they have had the same philosophy forever, Forsberg wouldn't have changed that

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 02:31 PM
  #46
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
"Either way that draft went, both teams got very good players, the way it played out, no one could have predicted that!"

All I said was that predicted that. I didn't predict Lindros' injury... but I did say that Quebec was much better off for the trade. Lindros' teams have never won a Cup when he was healthy. They've only been in the Finals once when he was a part of the team, healthy or no. The Lindros trade bankrupted the Flyers of much of their trade assets... and thus caused them to never have what they needed to put them over the edge.

And they didn't have the "same philosophy" in the 1980s. You seemed to have missed that one. And oh yeah, a player like Forsberg would've changed their philosophy. You really think they would've traded for LeClair if Forsberg was there? I seriously doubt it... they would've looked for a different kind of player.

You've stopped making a point.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 02:47 PM
  #47
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
"Either way that draft went, both teams got very good players, the way it played out, no one could have predicted that!"

All I said was that predicted that. I didn't predict Lindros' injury... but I did say that Quebec was much better off for the trade. Lindros' teams have never won a Cup when he was healthy. They've only been in the Finals once when he was a part of the team, healthy or no. The Lindros trade bankrupted the Flyers of much of their trade assets... and thus caused them to never have what they needed to put them over the edge.

And they didn't have the "same philosophy" in the 1980s. You seemed to have missed that one. And oh yeah, a player like Forsberg would've changed their philosophy. You really think they would've traded for LeClair if Forsberg was there? I seriously doubt it... they would've looked for a different kind of player.

You've stopped making a point.
The Philadelphia Flyers have always tried to use intimidation and physical play, from Schultze to Clarke , to guys like Linsman, they have lived and died with that mentality of pound them into submission. They have always been about being bigger and stronger than their opponent! So what if they don't get LeClair, they are what they are, Forsberg would have been no where near as good in Philly. Lighten up Francis!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 03:25 PM
  #48
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
The reasons behind who won cups don't start and end with Forsberg and Ricci
No, it starts and ends with the total assets acquired in the Lindros trade and what Lacroix was able to do with them.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 03:31 PM
  #49
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
The Philadelphia Flyers have always tried to use intimidation and physical play, from Schultze to Clarke , to guys like Linsman, they have lived and died with that mentality of pound them into submission. They have always been about being bigger and stronger than their opponent! So what if they don't get LeClair, they are what they are, Forsberg would have been no where near as good in Philly. Lighten up Francis!
They became what they became in the 90s because they built around Lindros. What's so difficult to see about this.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-08-2005, 03:38 PM
  #50
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
The only way I would trade the #1 pick(Crosby) is if he refused to play for the Rangers ala Lindros refusing to play for Quebec.

Slewfoot 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 12:38 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.