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

Betts re-signed

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-12-2005, 01:08 PM
  #26
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
I just think that there are better players be spending money on, players that are in our system now.
and the rangers can sign any of them that are ready to play and not have to worry about going over the cap, even with bett's god awful $500k contract for 1 year

Levitate is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 01:14 PM
  #27
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
and the rangers can sign any of them that are ready to play and not have to worry about going over the cap, even with bett's god awful $500k contract for 1 year

Why is it god awful? It's the league minimum.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 01:15 PM
  #28
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
hello sarcasm, how are you today?

Levitate is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 01:16 PM
  #29
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
"On our roster, he'll be a top four and could pair up with Poti or Tyutin."

Exactly. Jackass took a 3rd pairing defenseman and paid him like he is better. Paying people more money does not make them better. I realize that Malik is top 4 for us, but that is more commentary on mismanaging a teams assets.

"You're kidding right? Lampman is undersized and projects maybe as a 6 at best. He doesn't have the size of Malik and certainly isn't a guy who keeps players honest in front of his net. Lamp is more of a decent skater with some offensive capabilities. Whether or not he makes it remains to be seen. "

Lampman did not look out of place on the third pairing last year. He may not have the size of Malik, but he is exponentially more physical. Malik has had games that make Poti look like Foote. Lampman may not be a crushing hitter, but unlike Malik, he at least clears the crease. Lampman makes a very good first pass out of his zone. Malik is at best a 3rd pairing NHL defenseman. Lampman has not given me much reason to doubt that he can be as well.

"Because a guy who tied for the Alka-Seltzer plus/minus (+35) with Martin St. Louis comes around every day? "

Please see the 200 or so threads that disect how the +/- stat is absolutely no indicator of play. Let's recall that Ulanov led the Rangers in that wonderfull stat until he got traded.

"Face it. This ain't Stephane Quintal and it ain't Sylvain Lefreaking Febvre. And it isn't Igor Ulanov."

It's Marek freakin' Malik here. He does not deserve to carry an in-prime Lebfebvre's jockstrap. And I have my reservations if he will even be as good as the Rangers version. This is Malik here not Marchment or even a Sarich.

"This is an actual defenseman who has improved overall and became a key "defensive D-man" on a playoff team. How many defensive D-men does our roster have? "

How many do we have that, IMO can play no worse than Malik? About 7.

"Hard to say. A club could always pickup part of the salary and if a team trades for a player at the end of a contract, then they're only responsible for what's left."

Do not confuse the Jagr deal as one that will be a standard for all. Whatever team holds the contract, bears the full responsibililty for the full hit against the cap. The Jagr loophole was a pre-CBA exception, and will not be the rule. A 3rd pairing defenseman who is paid over $3m is not very easy to trade in the salary cap era.

"Rucinsky is here for one year. So is Straka. I believe Kaspar is either in his final year or second to last. Sounds like plenty of trade bait to me."

Rosie and Straka may be tradeable. Kasper & Malik not so much.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 01:19 PM
  #30
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
Would you rather have a 30-year-old Malik for three years or a 37-year-old Malakhov for two?
I would rather have an under 25 Lampman for much less than either.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 01:42 PM
  #31
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,856
vCash: 500
He did technically make the Rangers 03-04 team....and then got hurt, so it is a possibility.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 04:32 PM
  #32
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
on players that have a better shot at playing in more than 20 games.

500K on Betts is an unquestionable waste when we have players in our systemt hat can provide a healthy body for much the same price and 100 time better odds that they are in the line-up nightly.

Saying that since they have the cap space and are not going to accomplish much this year is a reason that we can throw away 500K is in my opinion wrong.

I know that we have a decent sized hill to climb this season, but paying a player like Betts 500K for 20 games is adding un-needed dead weight.

Can I predict that he will not play a full season, No I can't, but history (of this particular player) tells me that a full season from him is an extreme unlikelyhood.

I just think that there are better players be spending money on, players that are in our system now.
Well you'll be pleased to know that if he goes on IR then the Rangers can substitute another player for equal or less value...so his health really shouldn't have a negative impact on the cap.

Fish is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 04:34 PM
  #33
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
He did technically make the Rangers 03-04 team....and then got hurt, so it is a possibility.
I was thinking Lampman's got a good chance to win a final spot on the blueline with the Rangers. He's not a flashy guy, lacks a little in the size/strength department but he's smart positionally and is pretty good handling the puck.

Fish is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 06:45 PM
  #34
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue

Exactly. Jackass took a 3rd pairing defenseman and paid him like he is better. Paying people more money does not make them better. I realize that Malik is top 4 for us, but that is more commentary on mismanaging a teams assets.


Which is why Malik was needed. Thanks for proving my point. And please stop crying about the money they gave out. It's not any worse than the other examples I gave.


Lampman did not look out of place on the third pairing last year. He may not have the size of Malik, but he is exponentially more physical. Malik has had games that make Poti look like Foote. Lampman may not be a crushing hitter, but unlike Malik, he at least clears the crease. Lampman makes a very good first pass out of his zone. Malik is at best a 3rd pairing NHL defenseman. Lampman has not given me much reason to doubt that he can be as well.


We're talking about Lampman here right? He's a better skater and has more skill. But clear the crease? Oh god. You gotta be kidding with this crap. Lampman would get overpowered in the NHL.

Malik's main job is to take care of his end. And he does it well. So he isn't overly physical. So what. If he keeps players away from the net, then he's getting it done.



Please see the 200 or so threads that disect how the +/- stat is absolutely no indicator of play. Let's recall that Ulanov led the Rangers in that wonderfull stat until he got traded.


There's just no comparing the two. Malik has played for two NHL teams in his career. Carolina the year they went to the finals he was there and Vancouver, who was in the playoffs and he excelled over there big time. Ulanov had been on nine zillion teams.


It's Marek freakin' Malik here. He does not deserve to carry an in-prime Lebfebvre's jockstrap. And I have my reservations if he will even be as good as the Rangers version. This is Malik here not Marchment or even a Sarich.

Sarich has had one good year and he was what, a sixth freaking D-man with Tampa. Marchment is like Kaspar. Totally different style looking to hit everything legal or illegal. Just cause a guy hits doesn't mean he's a good player.


How many do we have that, IMO can play no worse than Malik? About 7.


How many vets did this team have aside from Kaspar that play D? You can't just field a roster of all first and second year players on the blueline. It is not wise. Other than Tyutin, the other young guys are unproven. They should have to earn jobs. Leaving more than half the spots open would be a mistake. Let four guys compete for the last two spots.

Do not confuse the Jagr deal as one that will be a standard for all. Whatever team holds the contract, bears the full responsibililty for the full hit against the cap. The Jagr loophole was a pre-CBA exception, and will not be the rule. A 3rd pairing defenseman who is paid over $3m is not very easy to trade in the salary cap era.


He's paid 2.5 mill if we want to be exact. And again, while you make your point, there's no guarantee he'll stay for the entire duration. Remember, we're the same team that was able to unload de Vries who they paid even more handsomely. What was it again? 4.5 mill a year???


Rosie and Straka may be tradeable. Kasper & Malik not so much.

Again... you can't be too sure. Defensemen are usually more in need cause they go down easier. A contender might want a Kaspar or Malik as that final piece. You never know.

But for now, they're here to work with our younger D and mesh well.


Since you dislike the Malik signing so much, here's his info:


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/player_list.asp?name=Malik



Nothing earth shattering. But again. How many defensive D-men did our team have going in? I don't think it's bad to have Kaspar pair up with one skating D on one pair and have Malik pair up with another skating D on another. That creates more balance.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 06:55 PM
  #35
NYC Aim 4588
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
Helminen and Falardeau.
I personally like Helminen and i think he will be a great 3rd line center with some good defensive skills along with a little offense to offer. Anyway i see Helminen as a John Madden type player, maybe wont put up #'s like Madden has but he will be good. As for Falardeau I am very curious to see what he will do in HRTFd and he does have very good size and pans out he also can be a very good and surprising 3rd line center, so I am curious to see what both Helminen and Falardeau will do in Hrtfd, who cares about Moore he is just a future ahl'er in my opinion.

 
Old
08-12-2005, 07:05 PM
  #36
Anthony Mauro
DraftBuzz Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,747
vCash: 500
You cannot use Aucoin as an example. We offered him money and he chose CHI town over us. Malik was most likely a back-up option. Betts is not gonna affect the cap and I'd rather have Kaspar at his price than someone else.

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 07:09 PM
  #37
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,633
vCash: 500
Awards:
From TSN:

Assets: Has tremendous reach and uses it effectively to poke the puck away from onrushing forwards. Is good at headmanning the puck in transition and plays with smarts in the defensive zone.

Sounds like someone I know. Save for the last part of the second sentence.

Flaws: Needs to use his body more effectively and lean more heavily on the opposition. Must play with more consistency in order to earn top-four minutes on a permanent basis.

That sounds all too familiar as well.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 07:12 PM
  #38
NYC Aim 4588
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
"On our roster, he'll be a top four and could pair up with Poti or Tyutin."

Exactly. Jackass took a 3rd pairing defenseman and paid him like he is better. Paying people more money does not make them better. I realize that Malik is top 4 for us, but that is more commentary on mismanaging a teams assets.

"You're kidding right? Lampman is undersized and projects maybe as a 6 at best. He doesn't have the size of Malik and certainly isn't a guy who keeps players honest in front of his net. Lamp is more of a decent skater with some offensive capabilities. Whether or not he makes it remains to be seen. "

Lampman did not look out of place on the third pairing last year. He may not have the size of Malik, but he is exponentially more physical. Malik has had games that make Poti look like Foote. Lampman may not be a crushing hitter, but unlike Malik, he at least clears the crease. Lampman makes a very good first pass out of his zone. Malik is at best a 3rd pairing NHL defenseman. Lampman has not given me much reason to doubt that he can be as well.

"Because a guy who tied for the Alka-Seltzer plus/minus (+35) with Martin St. Louis comes around every day? "

Please see the 200 or so threads that disect how the +/- stat is absolutely no indicator of play. Let's recall that Ulanov led the Rangers in that wonderfull stat until he got traded.

"Face it. This ain't Stephane Quintal and it ain't Sylvain Lefreaking Febvre. And it isn't Igor Ulanov."

It's Marek freakin' Malik here. He does not deserve to carry an in-prime Lebfebvre's jockstrap. And I have my reservations if he will even be as good as the Rangers version. This is Malik here not Marchment or even a Sarich.

"This is an actual defenseman who has improved overall and became a key "defensive D-man" on a playoff team. How many defensive D-men does our roster have? "

How many do we have that, IMO can play no worse than Malik? About 7.

"Hard to say. A club could always pickup part of the salary and if a team trades for a player at the end of a contract, then they're only responsible for what's left."

Do not confuse the Jagr deal as one that will be a standard for all. Whatever team holds the contract, bears the full responsibililty for the full hit against the cap. The Jagr loophole was a pre-CBA exception, and will not be the rule. A 3rd pairing defenseman who is paid over $3m is not very easy to trade in the salary cap era.

"Rucinsky is here for one year. So is Straka. I believe Kaspar is either in his final year or second to last. Sounds like plenty of trade bait to me."

Rosie and Straka may be tradeable. Kasper & Malik not so much.
I think you are talking like everything you are saying is fact when it is just AN OPINION. Also straka and Rucinsky are tradeable and will fetch something at the dead line if its a total of a couple second rounders or some mid level /prettyy good prospects they will get something. I also fgigure Jagr if he has a great season could fetch NYR a 1st rounder and maybe a couple good prospects and maybe / or a couple good picks along with a first rounder. Thats all based on MY OPINION, they are not facts.

 
Old
08-12-2005, 08:21 PM
  #39
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 14,090
vCash: 500
I thought the Malik contract was $7.5 million for three years. I wouldn't pay that much for him, but, considering some of the signings that some d-men, Malik isn't that expensive come trading time.

jas is online now  
Old
08-13-2005, 09:28 AM
  #40
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
"Which is why Malik was needed. Thanks for proving my point."

How on Earth did I prove your point? Malik is a top four defenseman for us SOLELY becuase Sather, as has been his m.o., decided to pay him and play him like one. If anything, you do nothing but prove my point, being that Sather mismanges his assets. Taking a 5/6 defenseman and paying him like a 2/3/4, does not suddenly elevate his level of play.

"And please stop crying about the money they gave out. It's not any worse than the other examples I gave."

This could be the most assinine excuse that I have yet to hear. It's like the childish jumping off the bridge argument. If one does it, does that mean that all should? If NHL teams overpay for some players, does that mean that we should also? We are trying to reverse the trends of the past, not keep making the same mistake over and over again.

"We're talking about Lampman here right? He's a better skater and has more skill. But clear the crease? Oh god. You gotta be kidding with this crap. Lampman would get overpowered in the NHL. "

Lampman makes an EFFORT to clear the crease. Malik does no such thing. He makes Poti look like a crease-clearer. He is frequently away from any type of play that involves physical contact. Don't just drink Sather's Kool-Aid here. Just ask 'Nucks fans of what they think of him.

"Malik's main job is to take care of his end. And he does it well."

Opinions vary. Again, just ask 'Nucks fans.

"So he isn't overly physical. So what. If he keeps players away from the net, then he's getting it done."

There is a difference between not being physical and shying away from contact. Any player that makes Poti look physical is not one I want around.

"There's just no comparing the two."

I am not comparing the two. You were trying to use the +/- stat as an indicator of Maliks' play. I simply stated that that stat does is not an indicator of play and used Ulanov as an example.

"Just cause a guy hits doesn't mean he's a good player."

Off course not. But just becuase Sather says that Malik gives you a physical prescence does not mean that it is sooth. Again, have you actually ever watched him play? I have a friend who is a big-time Vancouver fan. And they ('Nucks fans) could not stand Malik. Just look at the responses from the ones who posted on this board.

"How many vets did this team have aside from Kaspar that play D? You can't just field a roster of all first and second year players on the blueline. It is not wise."

Off course not. This is not an argument about the fact that one vet defenseman needed to be signed. This is an arument about whether or not it should have been Malik and if he was overpaid.

"Remember, we're the same team that was able to unload de Vries who they paid even more handsomely."

You cannot compare Malik to De Vries. Malik is not the player DeVo is.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-13-2005, 02:32 PM
  #41
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue

How on Earth did I prove your point? Malik is a top four defenseman for us SOLELY becuase Sather, as has been his m.o., decided to pay him and play him like one. If anything, you do nothing but prove my point, being that Sather mismanges his assets. Taking a 5/6 defenseman and paying him like a 2/3/4,
does not suddenly elevate his level of play.

You admitted that on our roster, Malik's in the top four.

This could be the most assinine excuse that I have yet to hear. It's like the childish jumping off the bridge argument. If one does it, does that mean that all should? If NHL teams overpay for some players, does that mean that we should also? We are trying to reverse the trends of the past, not keep making the same mistake over and over again.


Why? Cause you loathe our GM and think everything he does sucks? You and a few others will cheapshot the Ranger organization no matter what they do.

If they had given Niedermayer the max, you would have trashed it. If Forsberg had signed for six, it would have been awful.

But because instead they brought in a role player who actually could fit in, you don't like it.

When you look at our D, it is not like past years. Not when you have Tyutin in the top four, Kondratiev, Pock and Lampman all competing for spots. But if you think they can go into the season with a D of Kasparaitis, Poti, Tyutin and three unproven guys, that just won't work.


Lampman makes an EFFORT to clear the crease. Malik does no such thing. He makes Poti look like a crease-clearer. He is frequently away from any type of play that involves physical contact. Don't just drink Sather's Kool-Aid here. Just ask 'Nucks fans of what they think of him.


Lampman is not going to be able to keep bigger players away from the net. He's undersized and might struggle to be a regular. There's a big transition from being a good D-man in the 'A' to being one in the NHL. You tend to overlook that.

Malik has been defensively responsible and plays his position solidly in front of the net. I'm not asking him to freight train every guy. I'm asking him to pair up with one of our puckmoving D and work well with them.

You seem to think that if a guy isn't a hitter, that he sucks. Well, how many times has Kaspar went for the big hit and missed and it turned into an odd man rush? Sometimes, overaggressiveness backfires.


Opinions vary. Again, just ask 'Nucks fans.

Why don't you ask them how their team did after they acquired him? They were a better team.

There is a difference between not being physical and shying away from contact. Any player that makes Poti look physical is not one I want around.

That's just preposterous. Malik can play his position. Poti can't.


I am not comparing the two. You were trying to use the +/- stat as an indicator of Maliks' play. I simply stated that that stat does is not an indicator of play and used Ulanov as an example.

Maybe not. But you seem to think Lampman can just jump right into the NHL and be effective. It doesn't happen that way. Malik is more proven, which was my main point.

Off course not. But just becuase Sather says that Malik gives you a physical prescence does not mean that it is sooth. Again, have you actually ever watched him play? I have a friend who is a big-time Vancouver fan. And they ('Nucks fans) could not stand Malik. Just look at the responses from the ones who posted on this board.


I've seen him play. I know he's not going to hit a lot. He is a positional D-man with size, who can play in front of his own net. Where did I ever say he was physical?



Off course not. This is not an argument about the fact that one vet defenseman needed to be signed. This is an arument about whether or not it should have been Malik and if he was overpaid.


Who did you want?



You cannot compare Malik to De Vries. Malik is not the player DeVo is.

Maybe not. And de Vries accounted himself well here. But he was not a 4.5 million a year player. Not even close. Malik might be overpaid but he wasn't grossly overpaid like Greg, who btw was a bottom pair D-man on the Avs. Similar to Malik. And still, the Rangers were able to unload de Vries to Ottawa and get Rachunek and Giroux in return. Too bad Rachunek won't play here.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-13-2005, 07:02 PM
  #42
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
"You admitted that on our roster, Malik's in the top four."

No, I did no such thing. I said that on our team Sather is paying for him to be in the top four. A role he is unsuited to play. If you notice that I keep saying that paying a #6 defenseman the money that a #3/4 would make, does not suddenly make him into one. Do not confuse that. The sole reason he is in the top 4 is becuase Sather put him there. Makes no difference if Malik's play is any worse than that of Lampman or Kondratiev.

"Why? Cause you loathe our GM and think everything he does sucks? You and a few others will cheapshot the Ranger organization no matter what they do."

What on Earth does that have to do with Sather overpaying for him? You keep pointing to other GM's overpaying, but how does that relate to "cheapshoting" Sather. How does your above comment reflect the conversation? What does it have to do with overpaying for Malik? Please try to stick to the argument without going off on personal tangents.
And, PLEASE with the "cheapshots". When Sather does something that is to be admired, I wills say it. Or are you one of those that thinks that he has done a great job during his tenure?

"If they had given Niedermayer the max, you would have trashed it. If Forsberg had signed for six, it would have been awful."

Off course I would have. Neither player makes the Rangers better, AS A WHOLE. Neither player belongs on a rebuilding team.

"But because instead they brought in a role player who actually could fit in, you don't like it. "

A defenseman is no role player. Chris Simon is a role player. Matty Barnaby is a role player. A defenseman is not.

"When you look at our D, it is not like past years. Not when you have Tyutin in the top four, Kondratiev, Pock and Lampman all competing for spots. But if you think they can go into the season with a D of Kasparaitis, Poti, Tyutin and three unproven guys, that just won't work."

Again, the argument is not whether or not we should have signed a veteran defenseman. The argument is whether or not it should have been Malik for the amount of money and the length of years that he was signed for. As the Rangers are a rebuilding team, I would have no problem going into a year with Poti, Kasper, someone other than Malik signed to lesser money and lesser years, Tyutin, Lampman & one of Kondratiev or Pock or even Liffiton or someone else. The point is not whether or not another veteran should have been signed. The point is that it should not have been Malik. Not at the amount he got, nor the years he recieved.

"Lampman is not going to be able to keep bigger players away from the net. He's undersized and might struggle to be a regular. There's a big transition from being a good D-man in the 'A' to being one in the NHL. You tend to overlook that."

Lampman did not look out of place last year. As a matter of fact, he looked more steady than some of our so-called vets. I have no problem entering this year with him on the third pairing. And while Lampman may struggle, he is young and WILL get stronger. While he may be struggling this year to move players, it is becuase he is in front of the net doing so. Malik is usually not found anywhere near an area where some physical play is required.

"Malik has been defensively responsible and plays his position solidly in front of the net. I'm not asking him to freight train every guy. I'm asking him to pair up with one of our puckmoving D and work well with them. "

Great. That does not change the fact that he is a 3rd pairing defenesman being paid to be a 2nd pairing one. One could have gotten someone else for less money and less years.

"You seem to think that if a guy isn't a hitter, that he sucks."

What gave you that idea? Nowhere will you find me making such a statement. Had you been here longer you would know that my views are quite opposite that.

"Why don't you ask them how their team did after they acquired him? They were a better team."

Not really a good reply. Again, just go on the Vancouver board and ask their fans. Or, since it does not seem like you are willing to test your theories, just read the comments made by their fans on this board. Seems pretty simple to me.

"That's just preposterous. Malik can play his position. Poti can't"

Again, you are trying to shift the argument into something that it is not. I said that Malik makes Poti look like Foote. Had you been on this board longer, you would know that it is not a lack of contact that I detest in Poti. It is that he shies away from it as if frightened. What does that say about Malik?

"Maybe not. But you seem to think Lampman can just jump right into the NHL and be effective. It doesn't happen that way. Malik is more proven, which was my main point."

Yes, I think that Lampman can be an effective 3rd pairing defenseman. Off course there is a learning curve. There is with all youngsters. But who cares? This is a rebuilding team. Malik may be more proven, but all that he has proven is that he is a third pairing defenseman. To me, that puts him in the same defensive pairing that Lampman should be at. I have no idea of what you are harping at.

"Where did I ever say he was physical?"

You're kidding right? Lampman is undersized and projects maybe as a 6 at best. He doesn't have the size of Malik and certainly isn't a guy who keeps players honest in front of his net.

You are implying that Malik is going to keep players honest. How do you keep them honest if you refuse to touch them?

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-13-2005, 08:48 PM
  #43
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
True, I am done with this thread. You have your view. I got mine. It makes no sense to continue debating it.

I feel the guys they added including Malik will fit in. You don't. Maybe you'd rather they have signed nobody and filled the entire roster with kids. If that's the case, it's just not realistic.

See ya around.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-14-2005, 10:20 AM
  #44
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
I feel the guys they added including Malik will fit in. You don't. Maybe you'd rather they have signed nobody and filled the entire roster with kids. If that's the case, it's just not realistic.
As a final note, I never said that you can fill a roster with nothing but kids. Nor have I ever said that the players that they signed would not fit in on our rebuilding team. Where you and I do not agree is Malik's role, contract length and dollar amount.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-14-2005, 02:23 PM
  #45
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
As a final note, I never said that you can fill a roster with nothing but kids. Nor have I ever said that the players that they signed would not fit in on our rebuilding team. Where you and I do not agree is Malik's role, contract length and dollar amount.

I figured this would be your response. One point I never said was that our team has to overpay to get free agents this summer. If you look at what Straka and Rucinsky got, it rings true. Malik too. Only Nieminen was not overpaid but probably a bargain. Ward I have no comment on cause I don't know what to expect.

They offered Forsberg more than the Flyers. He said no. They supposedly offered Niedermayer max money. He went to Anaheim for less.

They were rumored to be in the mix for a couple of other guys but they also went elsewhere.


Right now, our team just isn't an attractive place for most free agents. Unless they offer more, they don't have a chance.

This doesn't excuse the past summers where they whored themselves out there to players (even average ones).


And I am not saying I agree with what they gave Malik in terms of compensation or length. I'd have given him two years instead.

And I definitely didn't agree with how much they gave both Straka and Rucinsky.

Kovy274Hart 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 03:37 PM.

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.