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

Rumblings from the press box

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-24-2006, 12:58 AM
  #51
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitain Midnight
Uh..some guy named Rob Blake still plays there...I guess he is ok...

Actually I agreed with your other statement....no way the Avs trade Liles...for "B" talent. It would take a Prucha or something of comparable NHL talent to do...I'm surprised that no one else has said this.

For all those saying I wouldn't trade Dawes, Immonen, etc....you should because this is a Top 3 D-man in the NHL....not the in the minors....Those are hard to come by.
I dunno about him being a top 3 d-man in the NHL. There are quite a few guys I'd take over him. He is good though.

I think it comes down more to what purpose does it serve. The move nets them a defenseman, but leaves them with even less top 6 forward prospects than they already have. The Rangers biggest problem is getting defenseman who can keep pucks out of the net, not necessarily adding more offensive punch.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 01:27 AM
  #52
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,380
vCash: 500
The problem with Colorado and Edmonton making these deals for prospects is it doesn't help them now and as far as I know neither of them are out of it. Colorado's system though is a little bare.

On trading Montoya I'd want a top 3 pick straight up or not bother. I'd prefer to hold on to him. I'd like to see him continue to develop to the point where he and Henrik are our goalies and then think about trades. Weekes has no future for us beyond next year and maybe not this year. Holt I'm unconvinced about. Before trading Montoya I'd like at least to have a nice goalie prospect or two in the bank.
Depending on how we draft maybe we'll come up with someone this year or maybe we'll sign a college free agent but we need to add more goalies into our system.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 06:36 AM
  #53
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,779
vCash: 500
Kurt Sauer has been a healthy scratch for most of this season.Mike Komisarek is a local kid and reportedly on the block

Colorado is not trading Jon Michael Liles and what is the big deal with MA Bergeron?

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 06:38 AM
  #54
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones
The problem with Colorado and Edmonton making these deals for prospects is it doesn't help them now and as far as I know neither of them are out of it. Colorado's system though is a little bare.
If we make a deal for JML, Poti would go the other way. For us it wouldn't make any sense holding on to him, since JML would take his spot. For Colorado Poti might actually be somewhat of a better fit then JML, IF they can sign him to a long term contract. Like 4 years 8m. If JML keeps putting up the same numbers as he is right now he would defenitly ask for around 3.5-4m per year. 1.5-2 million is allot to save for the Avs. Blake, Sakic, Tanguay, Liles and Svatos contracts are all up at the end of the season.

If the deal is Poti + 2 prospects the Avs would downgrade Liles while saving some money, and add 2 prospects.

Without a doubt we are suddenly stacked on the farm and in the NHL. Jagr, Ward and Orts on RW. Nylander, Betts and Moore at C. Prucha and Hollweg at LW. On the farm at RW we got: Korpikoski, Moore, Callahan, Ryan, Pyatt and Cliche. At C: Immonen, Dubinsky, Helminen, Graham and Olver. LW: Dawes and Jessiman. Just to name a few. Thats 20 forwards. I am not saying that all of them will make it, but we can't even develop them all properly at the same time.

I personally wouldn't mind if we for example send Poti, Dawes and a prospect from a position of strength for JML. We would get a player type who is among the best in the league at his position (QB - puckmoving D) basically straight up for Dawes.

Though of course its all speculation. SOTI only said that Sather was interested in JML ect. But in theory I think its defenitly something Sather should explore.

Ola is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 07:07 AM
  #55
KRM
Registered User
 
KRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Gothenburg
Country: Sweden
Posts: 11,006
vCash: 500
Get Lundqvist out of Dallas.

KRM is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 07:24 AM
  #56
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitain Midnight
Uh..some guy named Rob Blake still plays there...I guess he is ok...
rob blake is also like 36-37 years old and a UFA at the end of the year...he might still be their best dman right now but they have to think beyond this year and next too.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 07:25 AM
  #57
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
Without a doubt we are suddenly stacked on the farm and in the NHL. Jagr, Ward and Orts on RW. Nylander, Betts and Moore at C. Prucha and Hollweg at LW. On the farm at RW we got: Korpikoski, Moore, Callahan, Ryan, Pyatt and Cliche. At C: Immonen, Dubinsky, Helminen, Graham and Olver. LW: Dawes and Jessiman. Just to name a few. Thats 20 forwards. I am not saying that all of them will make it, but we can't even develop them all properly at the same time.
Stacked is a rather dubious term. There are lots of possibilities, but I would not go so far as to say that the farm is "stacked". No one knows how Korpikosi will adapt to North American. Moore, Callahan, Ryan & Pyatt right now seem like long-shots. Yes, they are doing well, but they must be able to demonstrate that they can translate their game to the next level. Helminen still seems to be a bottom-6 forward. Graham is a very young AHLer, but he is not showing all that much at that level. Olver falls into the Ryan/Pyatt category.
The Rangers are clearly "stacked" in bottom 6 forwards. We certainly hope that Dawes and Immonen can be 2nd line NHL players, but they need to demonstrate something of that. For all we know, they are AAAA players, who excel in the AHL, but cannot perform in the NHL (See Jeff Toms).
If all the forward prospects pan out and play up to their potential, then yes, the Rangers are in good shape and you can even get away with the term "stacked". Even though they would still lack top-end talent, they would be in very good shape. However, one cannot make that call right now.
Having said all that, I just cannot see a trade of what few hopefulls for the top 6 positions we have (Dawes, Immonen & maybe Korpikoski & Dubinsky). Dealing from some "B" defensive prospects is a different story. The Rangers DO have quite a few probably future #5/6 defensemen. That would be dealing fom strength. Like trading Drats for Sykora.
Under no circumstance would I move Montoya. It is clear that only one will be the "future" of the Rangers in goal. However, it is FAR too early to tell which one. Such a choice cannot be made until at least 3 or 4 years down the line. Lundquist looks fantastic now, but again, this organization would kick themselves for years to come if they found out that they traded the next Roy, and kept the next Cujo.


Last edited by True Blue: 01-24-2006 at 07:47 AM.
True Blue is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 07:27 AM
  #58
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
my feeling on montoya is that i ONLY include him in a deal that is an absolutely no-brainers, can't refuse type of deals...if you have to think twice about it then hold onto him for now cause we don't have to move him yet...

but if you can turn him into a 18-20 year old franchise forward that the team can be built around for the next 15 years then thats probably a deal i make...

also i'd be very hestitant to include montoya as part of a 'package'...montoya by himself should get us a high pick or good young forward. so i'm not gonna be throwing other prospects and picks in the deal on top...

NYR469 is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 08:03 AM
  #59
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Having said all that, I just cannot see a trade of what few hopefulls for the top 6 positions we have (Dawes, Immonen & maybe Korpikoski & Dubinsky). Dealing from some "B" defensive prospects is a different story. The Rangers DO have quite a few probably future #5/6 defensemen. That would be dealing fom strength. Like trading Drats for Sykora.
One point is that we don't have a single player with PP QB potential(IMO atleast since I don't belive in Pck) on the farm. So moving Dawes, who obviously is very simular to Prucha, for a QB D is atleast not a move where we deal from a position of weakness for a player type that we already have. Its the other way around.

I also think we have quit allot of good prospects with top 6 potential. I defenitly think that atleast two from the group of Korpikoski, Jessiman, Dawes, Dubinsky, Callahan, Ryan, Olver and G. Moore will play on a 2nd line in the NHL. But none of them have top2 potential, you know "go to players". Jagr/Nylander types. However Immonen for example defenitly don't have that potential, neither does Dawes. Or basically anyone else in the org (I haven't seen Dubinsky though). So hanging on to all of them won't solve our biggest problem, replacing Jagr.

The bottom line is that I would have no problem dealing from a positon of strength (Dawes is expandable because of Prucha) to fill a hole. We don't have any young D's with offensive potential to run a PP for a contender. Liles have that.

Ola is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 09:19 AM
  #60
schmieder44
Registered User
 
schmieder44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 291
vCash: 500
Why would the Rangers need to add any more value than Montoya alone to get a top 10 pick. He was what 5th? Plus he's proved/proving himself so hes less of an unknown. I dont know why you would need to add a prospect also.

schmieder44 is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 09:38 AM
  #61
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmieder44
Why would the Rangers need to add any more value than Montoya alone to get a top 10 pick. He was what 5th? Plus he's proved/proving himself so hes less of an unknown. I dont know why you would need to add a prospect also.
I don't think our top priority should be a top 10 pick. Our top priority is to replace Jagr when he retires, likely 2 years from now. Only a 1st overall pick would give us reasonable odds to achive that with a draft pick. Its better to keep Montoya(or Lundqvist) and deal him for a established player. With the new waiver rules goalies are more valuble. There is also allot of "old goalies" around the league.

I don't see it as impossible to deal Lundqivst either. If Montoya comes along really well and the right deal is there for Lundqvist it might make sense, ie if we can get a franchise player in return.

Ola is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 09:44 AM
  #62
Entrancemperium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 555
vCash: 500
Lundqvist is the man! but slightly of topic, any chance the rangers could move up in the drafdt and get Peter Mueller? would be a sweet addition to the crop. Thoughts?

Entrancemperium is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 09:58 AM
  #63
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
I also think we have quit allot of good prospects with top 6 potential. I defenitly think that atleast two from the group of Korpikoski, Jessiman, Dawes, Dubinsky, Callahan, Ryan, Olver and G. Moore will play on a 2nd line in the NHL.
I would be ecstatic if two of them were to be come second liners. And if they all play out to their top potential, the organization is truly in good shapre. However, Until any of them flash such potential at even the AHL level, all of them must be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Of them, only Dawes shows that he can be a second line player in the NHL. The others have proved no such thing.
As such, I would not consider dealing what few top 6 prospects that we currently think we have.
A statement like this:

"The bottom line is that I would have no problem dealing from a positon of strength (Dawes is expandable because of Prucha) to fill a hole. "

I do not agree with. I do not see it as dealing as a position of strength. Not just yet. When a few more of them show what at a minimum Dawes is showing in Hartford, you can make such a statement. But, not before, IMO.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 10:03 AM
  #64
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Under no circumstance would I move Montoya. It is clear that only one will be the "future" of the Rangers in goal. However, it is FAR too early to tell which one. Such a choice cannot be made until at least 3 or 4 years down the line. Lundquist looks fantastic now, but again, this organization would kick themselves for years to come if they found out that they traded the next Roy, and kept the next Cujo.
Under NO circumstance? You wouldn't deal him straight up today for Ovechkin? I'd pull the trigger on that and several other deals including Al. I agree with you that it's too early to know which of our two goalie studs will be the man...but I think one of them will be gone within 3 years. Personally, short of getting a great player back in return now, i think the organization should wait until the summer of '08 before making a move. Let Montoya play the '06-'07 season in Hartford and then have him back up Henrik in '07-'08. After that you decide which way to go.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 10:24 AM
  #65
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entrancemperium
Lundqvist is the man! but slightly of topic, any chance the rangers could move up in the drafdt and get Peter Mueller? would be a sweet addition to the crop. Thoughts?
I think they'd trade up to get Jordan Staal over Mueller.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 11:15 AM
  #66
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue
Under NO circumstance? You wouldn't deal him straight up today for Ovechkin? I'd pull the trigger on that and several other deals including Al.
I did not really think that I needed to say "short of getting Ovechkin or Crosby or Phaneuf". Or the like. But short of a trade like that, no, I would not trade him under any circumstance.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 11:25 AM
  #67
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,380
vCash: 500
Actually think we have the real deal with Lundqvist. It's just that we might have another real deal with Montoya. I think in any case he'll be a legitimate starting goalie somewhere. He's made very good progress this year. One concern for me is stripping the organization now of what depth it has at a critical position. In order to trade Montoya even in June at the draft it would also require us to use a high pick 2nd or 3rd on another goalie---which we may do in any case. Even so I would not mess with our goaltending situation unless it brought us a huge return.

As for Dawes in a Liles trade--it is worth considering. Dawes might be our best prospect with top two line expectations but the emergence of Prucha makes me wonder about the size of player we're going to have on those top lines. He is a goalscorer though and a competitor and someone who's overcome a lot of odds. That would be a tough one.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 12:57 PM
  #68
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I would be ecstatic if two of them were to be come second liners. And if they all play out to their top potential, the organization is truly in good shapre. However, Until any of them flash such potential at even the AHL level, all of them must be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Of them, only Dawes shows that he can be a second line player in the NHL. The others have proved no such thing.
As such, I would not consider dealing what few top 6 prospects that we currently think we have.
A statement like this:

"The bottom line is that I would have no problem dealing from a positon of strength (Dawes is expandable because of Prucha) to fill a hole. "

I do not agree with. I do not see it as dealing as a position of strength. Not just yet. When a few more of them show what at a minimum Dawes is showing in Hartford, you can make such a statement. But, not before, IMO.
I really like Korpikoski and I think he will be really good. A really good 2nd line guy for a good team. I have him ahead of Dawes.

On the dealing from a position of strength issue, with Prucha we are defenitly stronger in his and Dawes position then QB D cathegory.

Ola is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 01:53 PM
  #69
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,928
vCash: 500
Kudos to S_O_T_I.

He called it. NEVER a bum steer.

This: http://www.leaderboard.com/rodent.htm

and

This: http://www.nypost.com/sports/rangers/59481.htm

Thanks for the heads up S_O_T_I.

Pizza is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 02:03 PM
  #70
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
I really like Korpikoski and I think he will be really good.
Me too.

"A really good 2nd line guy for a good team."

That, however, remains to be seen. I certainly hope so. But them I also thought that Brendl, Lundmark & Blackburn would be the cornerstones of the franchise.

"I have him ahead of Dawes."

Can't do that until he comes to North America and performs better.

"On the dealing from a position of strength issue, with Prucha we are defenitly stronger in his and Dawes position then QB D cathegory."

Top 6 forwards is not a position of strength. Right now, there is only one of them under the age of 30. We can all speculate about Immonen, Dawes, Lauri K & Dubinsky, but until they show it, you are just counting your chickens before they hatch.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 02:55 PM
  #71
S_O_T_I
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza
Kudos to S_O_T_I.

He called it. NEVER a bum steer.

This: http://www.leaderboard.com/rodent.htm

and

This: http://www.nypost.com/sports/rangers/59481.htm

Thanks for the heads up S_O_T_I.
Clearly this has been the topic of internal conversations. Larry is only hinting to the rumros that we've been hearing. Also, guys I never said that we will be trading "B" prospects for a guy like Liles. I only said that heard that the Ranger like him. It would take an "A" prospect and a NHL player to get a guy like that. I have to run..I'll check in tomorrow.

S_O_T_I is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 03:01 PM
  #72
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
wow i actually like those names, liles and bergeron especially.. they can both fly

i'd like to know what is a "b" prospect now

in the hall is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 03:12 PM
  #73
bathgate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 874
vCash: 500
I certainly hope that Rodent and S.O.T.I. are wrong. The team is not yet ready for a push deep into the playoffs. I do agree that King Henrik can steal a series or two. Nevertheless, unlike Brodeur, our team is not as strong as the 1994 Devs.I like our nucleus. However build the foundation. Please do not repeat the mistakes of the last seven years!!

bathgate is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 03:51 PM
  #74
Firefly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mohawk Valley
Country: Poland
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Firefly Send a message via Skype™ to Firefly
You've got to think the Czech posse is untouchable in order to keep Jagr happy. I could see Rucchin and a prospect going somewhere when Betts gets healthy.

Firefly is offline  
Old
01-25-2006, 06:35 AM
  #75
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I would be ecstatic if two of them were to be come second liners. And if they all play out to their top potential, the organization is truly in good shapre. However, Until any of them flash such potential at even the AHL level, all of them must be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Of them, only Dawes shows that he can be a second line player in the NHL. The others have proved no such thing.
As such, I would not consider dealing what few top 6 prospects that we currently think we have.
A statement like this:

"The bottom line is that I would have no problem dealing from a positon of strength (Dawes is expandable because of Prucha) to fill a hole. "

I do not agree with. I do not see it as dealing as a position of strength. Not just yet. When a few more of them show what at a minimum Dawes is showing in Hartford, you can make such a statement. But, not before, IMO.
Agreed.

Pizza 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 02:16 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.