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

Flyers have better rookies

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-19-2006, 03:38 PM
  #26
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,442
vCash: 500
his potential to be what?

his stats aren't actually any better than Hollwegs stats (and Hollweg played in what is generally considered to be a tougher league)

yeah he could be a good player...a tough, gritty pest who can score some...but acting like he's some kind of amazing steal in the first round?


Levitate is offline  
Old
04-19-2006, 03:46 PM
  #27
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
his potential to be what?

yeah he could be a good player...a tough, gritty pest who can score some...
Thank you for answering your own question. Perhaps another Tucker? A player well worth a late 1st round pick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
but acting like he's some kind of amazing steal in the first round?

I don't see anyone calling him an amazing 1st round steal, but the fact of the matter is that he appears to be ahead of a number of 1st round picks selected before him, and again, Clarke acquired another pick AND got Downie.

That's sweet work, and it's shrewd use of assets and success in the first round that has gotten the Flyers the better set of rookies.

dedalus is offline  
Old
04-19-2006, 03:51 PM
  #28
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
I would expect ATLANTARANGER to step in at this point to remind you that Downie was named best forward at the WJCs.

The guy MAY be a head case (or just immature), but his potential is undeniable, and Clarke traded DOWN to get him.
Because he couldn't trade up to get...(wait for it)...MARC STAAL. And why couldn't he get Staal? Because he traded his 2nd round pick to the Rangers for Vlad Malakhov. And, what did the Rangers do with that 2nd round pick from the Flyers? That's right...they used it to trade up to get...(here it comes again)...MARC STAAL. OOPS!

As for trading for draft picks, so has Sather. Name me a year he hasn't traded down to get an additional pick. In 2004, not only did they use picks to move to get Korpikoski, but also traded down to get picks that added both Dubinsky and Billy Ryan. Last year, he traded down in the 2nd round to get another pick in the third round, whereby they selected Cliche and Dupont. I'm not a Satherite, but, I just want the full record shown.

jas is online now  
Old
04-19-2006, 07:22 PM
  #29
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
As for trading for draft picks, so has Sather. Name me a year he hasn't traded down to get an additional pick. In 2004, not only did they use picks to move to get Korpikoski, but also traded down to get picks that added both Dubinsky and Billy Ryan. Last year, he traded down in the 2nd round to get another pick in the third round, whereby they selected Cliche and Dupont. I'm not a Satherite, but, I just want the full record shown.
That's not unfair but it's critical that you build your case around 2004 and 2005. If you're going to show the full record you should point out that, unlike Clarke, Sather had a raft of draft picks that he acquired from selling off his entire team at the 2004 deadline. Clarke has operated his team and his acquisition of young talent very successfully without doing that. In fact, Clarke has built a better rookie draft class WHILE going to the conference finals last season.

I'm not a Clarke-ite, but we cannot ignore the fact that Sather is living off the boon of a fire sale that Clarke has been successful enough to avoid making. In other words, if the Rangers weren't so crappy under Sather in the first place, what DOES the Ranger cupboard look like?

Besides all this your first paragraph is irrelevant. Whether or not Sather beat Clarke to the punch with regards to Staal doesn't change the fact that Clarke dealt quite successfully with the pick he had.

dedalus is offline  
Old
04-19-2006, 07:57 PM
  #30
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
That's not unfair but it's critical that you build your case around 2004 and 2005. If you're going to show the full record you should point out that, unlike Clarke, Sather had a raft of draft picks that he acquired from selling off his entire team at the 2004 deadline. Clarke has operated his team and his acquisition of young talent very successfully without doing that. In fact, Clarke has built a better rookie draft class WHILE going to the conference finals last season.

I'm not a Clarke-ite, but we cannot ignore the fact that Sather is living off the boon of a fire sale that Clarke has been successful enough to avoid making. In other words, if the Rangers weren't so crappy under Sather in the first place, what DOES the Ranger cupboard look like?

Besides all this your first paragraph is irrelevant. Whether or not Sather beat Clarke to the punch with regards to Staal doesn't change the fact that Clarke dealt quite successfully with the pick he had.
True, if Sather's master plan had worked back in 2001, as opposed to this year, we'd be looking at things quite differently. No doubt the fire sale in 2004 filled the Rangers' coffers a lot quicker than the previous few drafts. Plus, it gave him extra assets to target specific players - i.e., Korpikoski and Staal.

As for my first paragraph being irrelevant, I disagree. The point is not that Sather "beat Clarke to the punch", but rather, it is the mirror opposite of the Pitkanen situation. Clarke was able to get Pitkanen because he had assets Sather didn't, since he dealt them for Bure, who was a short term remedy to Ranger problems of the time; in 2005, the shoe is on the other foot. Clarke didn't have the assets to get a player he had targeted, because he dealt the asset for a short term gain - Malakhov. The delicious irony for Ranger fans is that it is because he of the asset (2nd round pick) he gave the Rangers, it not only prevented him from making the deal for a player he wanted, but allowed the Rangers to make the same deal.

jas is online now  
Old
04-19-2006, 09:18 PM
  #31
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
it is the mirror opposite of the Pitkanen situation.
But it's not because Clarke traded a lesser asset and, more importantly, Clarke traded to help a legit Stanley Cup contender get better.

Most of us already knew that the Rangers were doing nothing of substance at the time Sather acquired Bure, and most of us (I thought you were one, jas) understood that Bure wasn't even addressing the Rangers' needs.

Clarke made a reasonable trade based on need and a reasonable expectation of payoff. Sather spent his (VERY good) asset in a very different way.

dedalus is offline  
Old
04-19-2006, 09:40 PM
  #32
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
But it's not because Clarke traded a lesser asset and, more importantly, Clarke traded to help a legit Stanley Cup contender get better.

Most of us already knew that the Rangers were doing nothing of substance at the time Sather acquired Bure, and most of us (I thought you were one, jas) understood that Bure wasn't even addressing the Rangers' needs.

Clarke made a reasonable trade based on need and a reasonable expectation of payoff. Sather spent his (VERY good) asset in a very different way.
No doubt there was risk involved in acquiring Bure at the time. However, it wasn't until Danton went hunting for Bure's knee that the deal officially collapsed. At the time of the deal, Sather thought Bure could help the Rangers get into the playoffs. But, the end result is what it is. But, I still maintain that because Clarke was willing to give up an asset for Malakhov that he could have used to get Staal (and remember how shocked we were when we got a 2nd round pick for Malakhov), it was just as poor asset management on Clarke's part, especially with Malakhov approaching free agency.

jas is online now  
Old
04-19-2006, 09:58 PM
  #33
Liquidrage*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
in 2005, the shoe is on the other foot. Clarke didn't have the assets to get a player he had targeted, because he dealt the asset for a short term gain - Malakhov.
What you wrote is very very retarded.

Clarke had/has major assests to get what he wanted. Richards, Carter, Nitty, Pitkanen, Umberger. And to a lesser degree Freddie IV and Downie and Ruzicka not to mention Picard and Jones. He could have basically pried anyone away with those assests. I have no doubt the Caps would part with AO for Carter Pitkanen Richards and Umbeger and drive them to Philly were they offered. Let alone some vet name from some random team that would have helped the Flyers more in the here and now.

The Flyers I don't think are in win now mode. I think they are in "win next year" mode more then anything. Though it will be a big dissapointment if they go out in Rnd 1 or something. Or really, anything short of a cup. But that doesn't mean the assests weren't there to get a player he had targeted. That is so stupidly moronic considering the assests he has that to write that means you weren't even thinking.

Don't even bothering telling me the Flyers suck or 1974 or any such drivel. That might have merit, but it doesn't change the fact that as far as assests to get what he wanted went, Clarke could have gotten the Moon by NHL standards with the assests he had.

Liquidrage* is offline  
Old
04-19-2006, 10:56 PM
  #34
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquidrage
What you wrote is very very retarded.

Clarke had/has major assests to get what he wanted. Richards, Carter, Nitty, Pitkanen, Umberger. And to a lesser degree Freddie IV and Downie and Ruzicka not to mention Picard and Jones. He could have basically pried anyone away with those assests. I have no doubt the Caps would part with AO for Carter Pitkanen Richards and Umbeger and drive them to Philly were they offered. Let alone some vet name from some random team that would have helped the Flyers more in the here and now.

The Flyers I don't think are in win now mode. I think they are in "win next year" mode more then anything. Though it will be a big dissapointment if they go out in Rnd 1 or something. Or really, anything short of a cup. But that doesn't mean the assests weren't there to get a player he had targeted. That is so stupidly moronic considering the assests he has that to write that means you weren't even thinking.

Don't even bothering telling me the Flyers suck or 1974 or any such drivel. That might have merit, but it doesn't change the fact that as far as assests to get what he wanted went, Clarke could have gotten the Moon by NHL standards with the assests he had.
I can't even begin to find a coherent thought in anything you wrote. The irony of the paragraph is your opening statement. There is nothing more to be said.

Actually, I will give you a clue. It helps to pay attention to what actually is being debated. The point was not that the Clarke didn't have ANY assets. It was that because of the deal for Malakhov, he didn't have a 2nd round pick to make a deal for Staal. That was the price. Notice that most draft day deals involve additional picks. No kidding someone would have given up a draft pick for Carter or Richards. Hell, go right ahead and waste assets in that manner.


Last edited by jas: 04-19-2006 at 11:02 PM.
jas is online now  
Old
04-19-2006, 11:26 PM
  #35
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
No doubt there was risk involved in acquiring Bure at the time. However, it wasn't until Danton went hunting for Bure's knee that the deal officially collapsed. At the time of the deal, Sather thought Bure could help the Rangers get into the playoffs. But, the end result is what it is. But, I still maintain that because Clarke was willing to give up an asset for Malakhov that he could have used to get Staal (and remember how shocked we were when we got a 2nd round pick for Malakhov), it was just as poor asset management on Clarke's part, especially with Malakhov approaching free agency.
Poor asset management ??? Malakhov played excellent for the Flyers in the 2004 playoffs, and without him the team doesn't sniff the 7th game of the ECF.

Not to mention that is you look at the two deals he made that day the trade looks like this:

Chris Therien, Rick Kozak & 2005 2nd rounder for Vlad Malakhov, 2005 3rd rounder, 2004 8th rounder


A very good deal for the Flyers.

Speking of asset management ... what does the Rangers draft situation look like this year ???

Clarke is sitting with the following:

1st: Flyers
2nd:Flyers, Kings, Coyotes
3rd: Blackhawks
4th: Coyotes
5th: Flyers
6th: Flyers
7th: Flyers

2007: Panthers 6th & the option to switch 3rd rounders with the Coyotes.


Last edited by John Flyers Fan: 04-19-2006 at 11:33 PM.
John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
04-19-2006, 11:44 PM
  #36
Liquidrage*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
I can't even begin to find a coherent thought in anything you wrote. The irony of the paragraph is your opening statement. There is nothing more to be said.

Actually, I will give you a clue. It helps to pay attention to what actually is being debated. The point was not that the Clarke didn't have ANY assets. It was that because of the deal for Malakhov, he didn't have a 2nd round pick to make a deal for Staal. That was the price. Notice that most draft day deals involve additional picks. No kidding someone would have given up a draft pick for Carter or Richards. Hell, go right ahead and waste assets in that manner.

Yeah, you're right. He had too many assests that were too good to give up for a person you think he really wanted that wasn't as good as the assests he already had and that you don't even know you wanted. Have fun creating your formula for that. I'm sure you can express that in a very *coherent* manner.

The bottom line if he wanted to get what you think he wanted he had the assests to get him easily. Many times over.

The assests used to get Malakov weren't some magic trade up package. It was what it was. And if he wanted to trade up to get Staal he had many many many options at his disposal to do that. Hell, Ruzicka was worth more then the traded away second at the time if he really wanted to.

Liquidrage* is offline  
Old
04-19-2006, 11:51 PM
  #37
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,837
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Poor asset management ??? Malakhov played excellent for the Flyers in the 2004 playoffs, and without him the team doesn't sniff the 7th game of the ECF.

Not to mention that is you look at the two deals he made that day the trade looks like this:

Chris Therien, Rick Kozak & 2005 2nd rounder for Vlad Malakhov, 2005 3rd rounder, 2004 8th rounder


A very good deal for the Flyers.

Speking of asset management ... what does the Rangers draft situation look like this year ???

Clarke is sitting with the following:

1st: Flyers
2nd:Flyers, Kings, Coyotes
3rd: Blackhawks
4th: Coyotes
5th: Flyers
6th: Flyers
7th: Flyers

2007: Panthers 6th & the option to switch 3rd rounders with the Coyotes.
I think it's:
1st: Rangers
2nd: Rangers
3rd: Sharks?
4th: Rangers
5th: none?
6th: Rangers
7th: Rangers

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 12:05 AM
  #38
RANGERDIEHARD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 929
vCash: 500
The Flyers definately have a solid crop of young players that have already shown that they can play at the NHL level - Richards, Pitkanen and Carter will all be good/great players in this league. Then they have pretty good "B" prospects with good upside in Umburger and Downie. Their Finnish goalie aint too shabby either, they'll be good for years to come. The Rangers on the other hand have two young players in the league (Lundqvist and Prucha) who should be good/great Nhl ers but have better prospects not playing in the NHL. I'll take Staal, Montoya, Dawes, Korpikoski, Dubinsky, Sauer, Pock etc... over what the Flyers have in their system any day. IMO it's not even close.

RANGERDIEHARD is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 12:35 AM
  #39
HVPOLARBEARS19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY
Country: Israel
Posts: 2,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HVPOLARBEARS19 Send a message via MSN to HVPOLARBEARS19
I dont know about you guys, but I am honestly not impressed by Tyutin at all...I think that there is way more hype than actual promise in him...Hugh Jessiman-esque. This isn't to say he's a bad player, but come on, the way people talk about him you'd think we're talking about Brian Leetch here. This being said, I would take Pitkanen over Tyutin ANY day of the year, Pitkanen is a stud and a game changer. Tytuin is no where near his calliber of play right now, and looked like a nervous bumbling player against Ottawa.

HVPOLARBEARS19 is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 12:49 AM
  #40
Drudkh
Registered User
 
Drudkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVPOLARBEARS19
I dont know about you guys, but I am honestly not impressed by Tyutin at all...I think that there is way more hype than actual promise in him...Hugh Jessiman-esque. This isn't to say he's a bad player, but come on, the way people talk about him you'd think we're talking about Brian Leetch here. This being said, I would take Pitkanen over Tyutin ANY day of the year, Pitkanen is a stud and a game changer. Tytuin is no where near his calliber of play right now, and looked like a nervous bumbling player against Ottawa.
Good post. Pitkanen is becoming pretty underrated these days.

Drudkh is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 05:20 AM
  #41
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Poor asset management ??? Malakhov played excellent for the Flyers in the 2004 playoffs, and without him the team doesn't sniff the 7th game of the ECF.

Not to mention that is you look at the two deals he made that day the trade looks like this:

Chris Therien, Rick Kozak & 2005 2nd rounder for Vlad Malakhov, 2005 3rd rounder, 2004 8th rounder


A very good deal for the Flyers.

Speking of asset management ... what does the Rangers draft situation look like this year ???

Clarke is sitting with the following:

1st: Flyers
2nd:Flyers, Kings, Coyotes
3rd: Blackhawks
4th: Coyotes
5th: Flyers
6th: Flyers
7th: Flyers

2007: Panthers 6th & the option to switch 3rd rounders with the Coyotes.
Again, you are missing the point. Number, did Malakhov help the Flyers win the Cup? No. Is he still there helping the Flyers this year? No. It was a very short-sided deal, and a major overpayment. Justify it all you want, but in the end, it becomes nothing more than a lost asset which, in the end prebvented Clarke from trading for a player he wanted because he no longer had it at his disposal. It is the same situation that prevented the Rangers from getting Pitkanen in 2002. They traded an asset (in this case a #1 pick) to get Bure in order to make the playoffs. They did not make the playoffs, and the #1 they traded, which could have been used to get Pitkanen, was no longer at their disposal. They did not reach their goal, and no matter how well Bure played for them, the deal stands as a loss. You did not Malakhov to make the playoffs. The goal in mind for the Flyers is to win the Cup, a goal they did not meet that year. In the 2005 draft, reports immediately surfaced that the Flyers liked Staal and wanted to make a deal to move up and get him. As we've seen countless times the past few years, the price to do that in the first round is a 2nd round pick, which, at that moment, they did not have. (I believe they subsequently traded down later with Florida to recoup that pick, but I could be wrong.) The Rangers had an extra 2nd round pick because of the deal for Malakhov and were able to make the trade to select Staal. All other info is extraneous. I don't care what picks the Flyers have this year, and I'm not commenting on the quality of Flyer drafts, or what assets they currently have. I am comparing to similar instances of poor asset management. The end result is what it is. In this instance, Clarke overpaid. I will give one further example of how poor a deal that was - this year, the Flyers gave up to 2nd round picks for Gauthier. But, because he is relatively young, and the Flyers re-signed him. Malakhov, OTOH, was going into free agency, and been inconsistent throughout heis Ranger career and, to be honest, most Rangers fans were flat out shocked that anyone would think of giving the Rangers a 2nd round pick for him. To be honest, that trade could rival giving up Ian Laperriere and Mattias Norstrom for Jari Kurri and Marty McSorely, since the end result looks to be the same. I'm not saying Clarke, overall exhibits bad asset management; rather, that this was an instance of bad asset management.

jas is online now  
Old
04-20-2006, 05:21 AM
  #42
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31-
I think it's:
1st: Rangers
2nd: Rangers
3rd: Sharks?
4th: Rangers
5th: none?
6th: Rangers
7th: Rangers
No, they have their own third. They gave up the Sharks third for Ozolinsh.

jas is online now  
Old
04-20-2006, 05:32 AM
  #43
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquidrage
Yeah, you're right. He had too many assests that were too good to give up for a person you think he really wanted that wasn't as good as the assests he already had and that you don't even know you wanted. Have fun creating your formula for that. I'm sure you can express that in a very *coherent* manner.

The bottom line if he wanted to get what you think he wanted he had the assests to get him easily. Many times over.

The assests used to get Malakov weren't some magic trade up package. It was what it was. And if he wanted to trade up to get Staal he had many many many options at his disposal to do that. Hell, Ruzicka was worth more then the traded away second at the time if he really wanted to.
Here, let's go over the evidence - when the Flyers traded down last year so Florida could move up and take McArdle, what was the price? When The Devils moved up to get Parise in 2003, what was the price? When the Rangers moved up to get Korpikoski in 2004, and Staal in 2005, what was the price? When Nashville moved up to get David Legwand in 1998, what did they give to the Sharks? If you answered "a 2nd round pick", you're a winner!!! I know for a fact that the NFL hands out a specific formula card regarding what the cost is to move up each round, and it wouldn't surprise if the same thing is done in the NHL. This no formula I created; it's fairly standard league fare.

The end result for a Ranger fan is this - I'm happy Clarke gave the Rangers a 2nd round pick for Malakhov because 1) I was stunned anyone would give up that much for him, 2) he didn't help the Flyers win the Cup, and 3) the asset we got for him allowed us to make the deal for one of the best prospects on defense not yet in the NHL.

jas is online now  
Old
04-20-2006, 07:23 AM
  #44
doubled
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
Jesus H. Christ I'm tired of hearing "wouldn't you like to have Umberger now?"

No, I don't give a damn about Umberger. It's over and done with, we don't need to revisit this every single time the guy does anything. He looks like he's a pretty good player, that's great, but at this point it's like a big "so what".

I AGREE - he ain't here, get over it!

doubled is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 07:27 AM
  #45
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
I would expect ATLANTARANGER to step in at this point to remind you that Downie was named best forward at the WJCs.

The guy MAY be a head case (or just immature), but his potential is undeniable, and Clarke traded DOWN to get him.
Thank-you.

BigE is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 08:13 AM
  #46
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drudkh
Good post. Pitkanen is becoming pretty underrated these days.
No he's not. Maybe he's lost a little in the glitz and glamour of other young players like Ovechkin and Crosby and Phaneuf, but I don't think there's anyone that wouldn't consider him one of the top young defensemen in the game.

and anyone who ever thought Tyutin was "brian leetch like" is a fool.

I'm quite impressed with Tyutin when he plays good, because his good game is damn good. He needs to find the consistancy to keep that up though, and he'll be a very valuable defenseman for this team.

Levitate is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 08:13 AM
  #47
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RANGERDIEHARD
I'll take Staal, Montoya, Dawes, Korpikoski, Dubinsky, Sauer, Pock etc... over what the Flyers have in their system any day. IMO it's not even close.
Let's not view the world with Ranger-colored glasses here. Carter and Richards are elite-level, TOP LINE prospects. Pittkanen is a top-pairing defenseman. Gagne is young.
If you take Montoya out of the equation and call Staal & Pittkanen a draw, who do the Rangers have that even can come close to either Richards or Carter? Please do not say Prucha.

True Blue is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 08:16 AM
  #48
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubled
I AGREE - he ain't here, get over it!
People are not going to get over it, because (as already pointed out on numerous occasions) he is a top-2 line prospect who was allowed to walk away and sign with a division rival. Things like this are often lamented over. The same way that the idiocy of the Lindros trade is still lamented over.

True Blue is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 08:22 AM
  #49
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Let's not view the world with Ranger-colored glasses here. Carter and Richards are elite-level, TOP LINE prospects. Pittkanen is a top-pairing defenseman. Gagne is young.
If you take Montoya out of the equation and call Staal & Pittkanen a draw, who do the Rangers have that even can come close to either Richards or Carter? Please do not say Prucha.
I think he was talking about what was in the system, not who's on the current NHL teams. The Rangers system does look better, but that's also because Carter and Richards just "graduated" last year, so their prospect pool is weaker

Levitate is offline  
Old
04-20-2006, 05:02 PM
  #50
HVPOLARBEARS19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY
Country: Israel
Posts: 2,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HVPOLARBEARS19 Send a message via MSN to HVPOLARBEARS19
I dont know...I suppose the verdict is still out since he's like what 22?
That being said, I really just don't have that much faith in him. If we needed to protect a one goal lead in game 7 and Tyutin was an option with 5 minutes left, would you feel confident in him? I don't think I would...or at least I'd feel way more confident with Pitkanen. Fedor Tyutin in my opinion will never be a #1 defensman...I don't even know if he will be a #2 defensman, where as Pitkanen most certainly will be. I also am much more impressed with Pitkanen's offensive side. He won the game for the Flyers against us in OT and is a game breaker.
However, like I said, Tyutin is still young so I'm not gonna crucify him for his short comings, but as of right now, I'll take Pitkanen any day of the week.

HVPOLARBEARS19 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 02:40 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.