HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
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
03-10-2005, 10:14 AM
  #76
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,509
vCash: 500
It seems only a few people here (usually the veterans) are capable of sustaining a discussion. The rest seem to circle the point like carrion birds squawking the same obscene, angry noise.

Do you consider trading the No. 1 pick for a package comparable to the one Quebec received for Lindros? Given what we no of the outcome, it seems very tempting. The Avs managed to build a tremendous team out of the components from that trade. Meanwhile Lindros only provided Philly with a sniff of the Cup. It's nice hearing comparisons to Gretz and Mario, but let the kid get on NHL ice before we induct him into the Hall. Personally, I'd keep the pick because I'm in awe of the idea of having a legit blue chip prospect on the team. There's a lot of hoopla surrounding Sidney I'm willing to take the chance with him, as opposed the alternates. Have I maintained you point, True Blue? Seems to cover it all.

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 10:39 AM
  #77
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron
Have I maintained you point, True Blue? Seems to cover it all.
Yup. Except you and I differ on whether or not to make the trade, but yes, point maintained.
On a sightly different topic, man, has it really been that long since we had a legit blue-chipper in the system? Are the days of Richter, Leetchie, Amonte & Weight really that far back? How time flies........

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 10:44 AM
  #78
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
...man, has it really been that long since we had a legit blue-chipper in the system? Are the days of Richter, Leetchie, Amonte & Weight really that far back? How time flies........
Yes it has. I haven't been excited about a prospect on this team since Brendl. Then he hit the ice that was that. :mad:

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 11:10 AM
  #79
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No, you need to understand what you write. You wrote:

"But what if they trade down to 5th in 05 and take a potential top line center and recieve a top line center prospect as part of the trade? "

Right there you state that you would make the trade by trading the #1 pick for the #5 pick and another top prospect. That is a far cry from the Lindros trade.
Once again your comprehension is lacking. I said that in a reply to a post, you need to understand the post I was replying to in order to understand what I am saying.

NYRfan said in his post that "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."

I never said that I would trade the 1st overall for a top 5 and another pick, not in that response or any other one. What I obviously said was in response to his quote about the center position, and I clearly said that if NYR traded down in the top 5 this year and recieved another top center prospect somewhere in the package (not as the package but as part of the package) for Crosby our center position would be just as strong, if not stronger, than having just Crosby on the top line. Having 2 top line centers can be even more dominant than having just one (Forsberg and Sakic).

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 11:14 AM
  #80
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 Shadowtron
Yes it has. I haven't been excited about a prospect on this team since Brendl. Then he hit the ice that was that. :mad:
Amen to that... Our best prospect right now after our big draft and prospect aquisitions is probably a 2nd pairing #3 defenseman. We need a blue chipper for once in our lives!

Barnaby is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 11:39 AM
  #81
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting
Once again your comprehension is lacking. I said that in a reply to a post, you need to understand the post I was replying to in order to understand what I am saying.

NYRfan said in his post that "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."

I never said that I would trade the 1st overall for a top 5 and another pick, not in that response or any other one. What I obviously said was in response to his quote about the center position, and I clearly said that if NYR traded down in the top 5 this year and recieved another top center prospect somewhere in the package (not as the package but as part of the package) for Crosby our center position would be just as strong, if not stronger, than having just Crosby on the top line. Having 2 top line centers can be even more dominant than having just one (Forsberg and Sakic).
exactly where is this 2nd top center prospect coming from? It would be more efficient , to draft Crosby this year, and look for another center next year. He would not turn this franchise around all alone, but he could be an important part of this franchise for a long time!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 06:42 PM
  #82
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
exactly where is this 2nd top center prospect coming from? It would be more efficient , to draft Crosby this year, and look for another center next year. He would not turn this franchise around all alone, but he could be an important part of this franchise for a long time!
Okay, one last time.

Let's say this is the package you get for Crosby:
-1st rounder- 4th overall 05
-1st rounder- 8th overall 06
-prospect with 1st line potential
-prospect with 2nd line potential
-2nd rounder
-a couple of valuable throwins like Simon, Hextall and Duschesne were in the Lindros deal

Without a doubt, you could easily take a top line center with the 4th overall pick in 05. Then, you could take another with the 8th overall in 06 OR that 1st line prospect you got in the trade could be a center. The team could easily end up with 2 top tier center prospects as opposed to one...so if all goes well your center position would be improved, not to mention your getting some other players as well.

And why not just take Crosby and take another center next year? Because the Rangers aren't deep enough in top line prospects to draft the same positions in multiple years. Spending 2 of our last 3 first rounders on goalies was bad enough, but with Blackburn's injury it was the smart move. But there are too many other wholes in the organization...making this trade would improve almost every aspect of it...including the center position.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 06:48 PM
  #83
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting
Okay, one last time.

Let's say this is the package you get for Crosby:
-1st rounder- 4th overall 05
-1st rounder- 8th overall 06
-prospect with 1st line potential
-prospect with 2nd line potential
-2nd rounder
-a couple of valuable throwins like Simon, Hextall and Duschesne were in the Lindros deal

Without a doubt, you could easily take a top line center with the 4th overall pick in 05. Then, you could take another with the 8th overall in 06 OR that 1st line prospect you got in the trade could be a center. The team could easily end up with 2 top tier center prospects as opposed to one...so if all goes well your center position would be improved, not to mention your getting some other players as well.

And why not just take Crosby and take another center next year? Because the Rangers aren't deep enough in top line prospects to draft the same positions in multiple years. Spending 2 of our last 3 first rounders on goalies was bad enough, but with Blackburn's injury it was the smart move. But there are too many other wholes in the organization...making this trade would improve almost every aspect of it...including the center position.
You position assumes there is a GM out there who doesn't have a clue other than Sather and Clarke. Wasn't Brendl a high first rounder? That is exactly why I keep Crosby and go from there! He is a sure NHLer if nothing else. BTW we are going to have to draft offense first for the next couple of drafts at any rate!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 06:56 PM
  #84
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
He was the best player of all those involved, including Forsberg. Not a knock on Forsberg, just a fact that the stats bear out.
Hmm ... you'll need to tell me what stats those are because in career points per game Forsberg wins. (In both regular season and playoff points.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Debateable at best. Personally, I think that Forsberg is the better all-around player.
You're not alone. THN did a survey of 24 GMs awhile back. Probably a year or so after Lindros's 1/2 Hart trophy. 18 of the 24 GMs felt that Forsberg was the better player.

And the idea that Forsberg is nothing but a skill player who couldn't fit Philly's rough-and-tumble style is ludicrous.

dedalus is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 07:08 PM
  #85
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Hmm ... you'll need to tell me what stats those are because in career points per game Forsberg wins. (In both regular season and playoff points.)


You're not alone. THN did a survey of 24 GMs awhile back. Probably a year or so after Lindros's 1/2 Hart trophy. 18 of the 24 GMs felt that Forsberg was the better player.

And the idea that Forsberg is nothing but a skill player who couldn't fit Philly's rough-and-tumble style is ludicrous.
Forsberg 9 NHL seasons:
580 games
216 goals
525 assists
741 pts
1.276 points per game
most dominant season (96) 1.45 pts per game

Lindros first 9 seasons:
558 games
325 goals
405 assists
730 pts
1.308 pts per game
most dominant season(96) 1.575 pts per game
Forsberg has I believe played one full season, Lindros never has.


Last edited by NYFAN: 03-10-2005 at 07:26 PM.
NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 08:11 PM
  #86
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
Forsberg 9 NHL seasons / Lindros first 9 seasons:
Well slicing 120 games off Eric Lindros's career certainly helps your argument. Why don't we look at their FULL careers rather than the stats you happen to like.

Forsberg: 580 games - 741 pts - 1.28 ppg (1.16 playoffs)

Lindros: 678 games - 817 pts - 1.21 ppg (1.14 playoffs)

Try again?

dedalus is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 08:25 PM
  #87
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Well slicing 120 games off Eric Lindros's career certainly helps your argument. Why don't we look at their FULL careers rather than the stats you happen to like.

Forsberg: 580 games - 741 pts - 1.28 ppg (1.16 playoffs)

Lindros: 678 games - 817 pts - 1.21 ppg (1.14 playoffs)

Try again?
Obviously you don't like the fact that on equal seasons played, Lindros wins. Most dominant season, Lindros wins. You want to add in the two extra seasons Lindros has played thats fine. Makes no difference to me, my point has been made

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 08:38 PM
  #88
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
Obviously you don't like the fact that on equal seasons played, Lindros wins.
It's not to do with likes or dislikes, it's to do with your premise about "equal seasons played." They haven't played equal seasons, period. That's what "career points per game" means.

You like to complain that "Its easy to be down on Lindros since the injuries ruined his career."[sic] In short, you don't like that people focus on his injuries to judge him, and yet you want to do the same thing. You want to simply ignore one part of his career to try to defend a bad proposition.

Let's have a littel consistency, shall we?

dedalus is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 08:48 PM
  #89
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
It's not to do with likes or dislikes, it's to do with your premise about "equal seasons played." They haven't played equal seasons, period. That's what "career points per game" means.

You like to complain that "Its easy to be down on Lindros since the injuries ruined his career."[sic] In short, you don't like that people focus on his injuries to judge him, and yet you want to do the same thing. You want to simply ignore one part of his career to try to defend a bad proposition.

Let's have a littel consistency, shall we?
I think it is alot more consistent, since Forsberg has only played 9 NHL seasons, to judge them on the first 9 seasons played.

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 09:04 PM
  #90
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Well slicing 120 games off Eric Lindros's career certainly helps your argument. Why don't we look at their FULL careers rather than the stats you happen to like.

Forsberg: 580 games - 741 pts - 1.28 ppg (1.16 playoffs)

Lindros: 678 games - 817 pts - 1.21 ppg (1.14 playoffs)

Try again?
Fine each had their best season in 95-96:
Lindros 73 games 1.575 pts per game 115 pts
Forsberg 82 games 1.42 pts per game 116 pts
Since Forsberg played more games , lets adjust total to be fair
Forsberg 73 games 103 pts or
Lindros 82 games 129 pts.


Last edited by NYFAN: 03-10-2005 at 09:38 PM.
NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-10-2005, 09:35 PM
  #91
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
This is a season by season rundown of pts per game. Clearly Lindros owns the more dominant seasons! And more of them.

Lindros
92-93 1.23ppg
93-94 1.49ppg
94-95 1.52ppg
95-96 1.57ppg
96-97 1.52ppg
97-98 1.13ppg
98-99 1.31ppg
99-00 1.07ppg
01-02 1.01ppg
02-03 .654ppg
03-04 .821ppg

Forsberg
94-95 1.06ppg
95-96 1.42ppg
96-97 1.32ppg
97-98 1.26ppg
98-99 1.24ppg
99-00 1.04ppg
00-01 1.22ppg
02-03 1.42ppg
03-04 1.41ppg

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 07:12 AM
  #92
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
On a side note, sorry to hear Forsberg has sustained a concussion. Something has got to be done about blows to the head. Too many of the stars are getting concussions like this. Forsbergs was caused by a cross check to the head according to multiple sources. Maybe a rule where there can be no contact if the head is impacted first, or no contact above chest level. I love the physical part of the NHL, but its hurting the game with all the concussions now. Players are just too big and too fast, to absorb these kinds of collisions, and I don't know how equipment can be improved to combat this. I do think that mouthpieces should be mandatory, as they are proven to reduce certain types of concussions. I realize cross checks are illegal, but the penalty needs to be much more severe if the object of that crosscheck is another players head.And I don't care if the head wasn't the original target, it shouldn't even be attempted if the possibility of a blow to the head is a real possibility.

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 07:29 AM
  #93
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
Too many of the stars are getting concussions like this. Forsbergs was caused by a cross check to the head according to multiple sources. Maybe a rule where there can be no contact if the head is impacted first, or no contact above chest level. I love the physical part of the NHL, but its hurting the game with all the concussions now.
Hockey is not ballet. Skate with the head up.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 07:52 AM
  #94
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Hockey is not ballet. Skate with the head up.
What does that have to do with a crosscheck to the head? There is entirely too much headhunting going on in the NHL!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 08:31 AM
  #95
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,226
vCash: 500
This was Forsbergs 7th concussion. That together with multiple surgerys on shoulders/hip/ankle and one surgery on a crushed hand and one ruptured spleen...

Lindros/Forsberg/Kariya together with Jagr are probably the eliteplayers of the after-Lemiuxe/Gretzky era.

The game of hockey can't loose 3/4 players that good before they turn 30, they can't have them seriously hampered at the age of 26-27. Look at guys like Messier and Gretzky. Sure they would have been remembered as great players even if the quite at the age of 27-29 but would they have been the same legends? No. Messier wouldn't even have won a cup in NY... Gretzky wouldn't have been able to sell the game in LA.

The NHL needs to eliminate checking to the head. They needs to start handing out long supspensions for thoose type of things.

Ola is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 08:39 AM
  #96
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
I tell ya, that elbow of Messiers should be taught to all the elite players!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 08:54 AM
  #97
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
Let's say it this way: If you take the Flyers and the Avalanche of 1996, 1997 and 2001 and just switch Lindros and Forsberg, then Forsberg wouldn't have won a Cup yet and Lindros would have won 2!!! It's just that simple...

Lindros was the most dominant player in his prime. To say Lindros is hurt too often, you must say the same about Forsberg as you can see actual in Sweden. And they don't play that hard over there.

By the way...talkin' about stats:

Forsberg (including playoffs):
713 games
0,33 goals per game
0,87 assists per game
1,26 points per game
+254

Lindros (including playoffs):
728 games
0,52 goals per game
0,68 assists per game
1,20 points per game
+229

So it's obvious that Lindros ist the better goalscorer, Forsberg is more of a playmaker. Lindros' overall points production is of course goin down because of his health. Lookin' at both players in their prime time Lindros is better than everybody including Forsberg, Sakic, Bure, Fedorov, Sundin and even Jagr! And Lindros definitely is a very good allround player as his plus/minus shows. Forsberg's plus/minus is a little bit better, but he is playing in a better defensive Team.

What team has the better side in the Lindros/Forsberg trade is not that obvious. But if Lindros wouldn't have denied to play for the Nordiques, the Nordiques never would have traded Lindros anyway! They didn't want to trade him, they just had to...

marvel is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 09:17 AM
  #98
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvel
Let's say it this way: If you take the Flyers and the Avalanche of 1996, 1997 and 2001 and just switch Lindros and Forsberg, then Forsberg wouldn't have won a Cup yet and Lindros would have won 2!!! It's just that simple...

Lindros was the most dominant player in his prime. To say Lindros is hurt too often, you must say the same about Forsberg as you can see actual in Sweden. And they don't play that hard over there.

By the way...talkin' about stats:

Forsberg (including playoffs):
713 games
0,33 goals per game
0,87 assists per game
1,26 points per game
+254

Lindros (including playoffs):
728 games
0,52 goals per game
0,68 assists per game
1,20 points per game
+229

So it's obvious that Lindros ist the better goalscorer, Forsberg is more of a playmaker. Lindros' overall points production is of course goin down because of his health. Lookin' at both players in their prime time Lindros is better than everybody including Forsberg, Sakic, Bure, Fedorov, Sundin and even Jagr! And Lindros definitely is a very good allround player as his plus/minus shows. Forsberg's plus/minus is a little bit better, but he is playing in a better defensive Team.

What team has the better side in the Lindros/Forsberg trade is not that obvious. But if Lindros wouldn't have denied to play for the Nordiques, the Nordiques never would have traded Lindros anyway! They didn't want to trade him, they just had to...
Good point mrvl about Lindros and the refusal to play for Quebec. They did parlay that into a significant amount though ,as others here have stated. I am a Lindros guy though. The physical aspect of his game was tremendous. Its a shame he has such a soft noggin, or who knows where he would have taken his career!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 09:44 AM
  #99
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
I really like both of them, but I'm a Lindros guy, too. Every player has his special strength and weakness. Lindros and Forsberg are both very physical but get hurt too often because of their style. Forsberg is surely the more skilled player, Lindros is more powerful, he's a Grizzly. But a Grizzly is a very intelligent and fast hunter... most people don't know that! Lindros is very skilled for a such a big guy. His biggest strength surely is his power. But he would never have been that dominant without skill. His biggest weakness is his reckless play. That's why he got hurt that often. A man who uses his body and jumps into the fire gets burned. A player who alway avoids traffic surely stays healthy...that's the game!

marvel is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 10:28 AM
  #100
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
The NHL needs to eliminate checking to the head. They needs to start handing out long supspensions for thoose type of things.
Players take their own chances if they skate with their head down. Can't suspend the hitter if the hittee is beind stupid and careless.

True Blue 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 08:04 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.