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

Barnaby and Barnaby63, you might want to

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-01-2004, 12:38 PM
  #1
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,732
vCash: 500
Barnaby and Barnaby63, you might want to

Re-read the original Zidlicky (sticky) thread before you start calling people stupid and say that everyone here says that the Dunham trade was a "bad" one. Both of you are guilty of mis-quoting and overstating what people think. Maybe you should realize that others here have the same right to their opinions that you do and that no one's opinion is stupid.

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.p...light=zidlicky

Note that the thread was started by the one poster who has seen Zidlicky play in Europe and if I remember correctly, knew about him before he was even drafted by the Rangers.

Here are some posts from the thread--sorry TB I couldn't find any post of yours (or mine for that matter) that were "stupid" enough to quote.

Laches: "I think riz's point is that while Dunham has no doubt been very good for us, Sather' grossly overpayed to get him. Teams have hardly been able to give goaltenders away the past few years. Dunham was playing horribly when we traded for him, Sather should have been able to get him for less."

Jonesey (Nashville fan):"To whomever said Zidlicky dosn't play the body, can't handle bigger forwards, etc.. I challenge you to watch one of Nashville's games this season. Once again I must thank you for giving us Murray, Kloucek, and Zidlicky for out #2 goalie. Zidlicky should make the all-star game this season, should he continue his stellar play. As of now, he leads the Predators in points, as well as being tied for 3rd in NHL defensemen points."

Kodiak: "I'm still amazed at how far some fans will go to downplay every player their team gives up in a trade. Zidlicky is not some flash in the pan. He's been the best d-man in Finland for the past few years and is showing that his game can translate over to the NHL well enough. He is the real deal.
"Throw in Kloucek, the hard-hitting crease-clearer we lack, and Murray, who would probably be the best 2-way forward on the team given Holik's putrid play, on top of Zidlicky and this trade does hurt. Not because of Dunham's play, but because we gave up more (relatively) young building blocks for another last-ditch attempt at the 8th playoff spot. Even if we make it in with Dunham, we are likely 4 and out against Ottawa or Philly/NJ."

Davisian:"The bottom line is that while we're all happy with Dunham, that was the biggest price paid for a goaltender since.... Since.... Likely since Roy.. Nashville knew they had Sather over a barrel, and there's no way he needed to send that much.. Whether or not any of the three amounted to much individually, they were still three assets that were squandered for a panic move.. Remember, they didn't EVEN TRY to see if one of the other goalies in the system could help.. I doubt they could have, but you don't make a panic move FOR THE 8th SEED!"

Melrose Jr: "What burns me is that Sather rode Blackburn for 18 straight games without even giving Holmqvist a "make-or-break" shot. Seeing as Johan went on to be the MVP of a Calder Cup winning team 5 months later, that seems like a "gamble" that should have been taken prior to parting with anyone OR throwing Blackburn to the Wolves with a workload that would probably wear Marty Broduer out. When both of them show an inability to perform the job, THEN you make a trade.
"Was it a good trade? Yes, but in the context of an organization where Lawrence Nycholat is far and away our 2nd best defensive prospect, losing Zidlicky is a blow no matter what kind of spin you put on the trade. We simply cannot afford to lose players like that only to perpetuate Ranger medocrity. As great as Dunham's been, this team is still longshot for the playoffs, so what really has been achieved here?"


Last edited by Brooklyn Ranger: 01-01-2004 at 12:42 PM.
Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 12:49 PM
  #2
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,494
vCash: 500
First of all I never called anyone stupid. Your the one thats always searching for confrontation. Next time I get an hour or so of free time I'll sit and go through old post after old post and find quotes to support my argument of which I'm sure there are plenty.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 01:03 PM
  #3
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
First of all I never called anyone stupid. Your the one thats always searching for confrontation. Next time I get an hour or so of free time I'll sit and go through old post after old post and find quotes to support my argument of which I'm sure there are plenty.
Sorry, you're right, it's your evil twin who calls everyone stupid. And what fun is agreeing with everyone all the time? You are also very good at sparking confrontation so I would be very wary of throwing stones on the subject.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 01:04 PM
  #4
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
heh. I called the people that over-reacted and said the trade was bad for the Rangers and then turn around and cry whenever Zidlicky scored a point in the early part of the season stupid. As i said then, 15 games doesnt make a season but everyone was ready to give him the Norris trophy then. Where are all the nay-sayers now?

And then people backpedal and say they didnt bash the actual trade at all, just that Sather didnt fork over the cash to bring Marek here. Round and round we go.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 01:07 PM
  #5
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,807
vCash: 500
Awards:
Nobody should be calling anyone stupid. For that matter, nobody should have to resort to any type of name calling to make their point.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 01:13 PM
  #6
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnaby63
heh. I called the people that over-reacted and said the trade was bad for the Rangers and then turn around and cry whenever Zidlicky scored a point in the early part of the season stupid. As i said then, 15 games doesnt make a season but everyone was ready to give him the Norris trophy then. Where are all the nay-sayers now?

And then people backpedal and say they didnt bash the actual trade at all, just that Sather didnt fork over the cash to bring Marek here. Round and round we go.
Go ahead and prove it. The thread is right here for you to quote line, chapter and verse. But please do as I did and quote the whole post (that way there is no chance of accidently editing out what a person was trying to say). And please show me where "everyone" was talking about him getting the Norris! I must of missed that post.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 02:33 PM
  #7
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
Go ahead and prove it. The thread is right here for you to quote line, chapter and verse. But please do as I did and quote the whole post (that way there is no chance of accidently editing out what a person was trying to say). And please show me where "everyone" was talking about him getting the Norris! I must of missed that post.
Sorry but i dont have the time on my hands like you do to go through an entire thread post for post. I actually have stuff to do.

As for the Norris, you dont take everything literally right? What i meant by that was everyone acted like he was the 2nd coming of jesus christ in the thread whenever he scored a point. How many ESP does Zidlicky have this year? Not many. Just like Poti. Zidlicky's +/- is worse than Poti's. Given PP time last season Poti scroed 20+ points just on the PP. But now that Sather has Kovalev playing the point Poti is robbed of his usual PP time and thus the drop in points. The same would happen to Zidlicky if you took him off the PP. So how Zidlicky is an improvement over Poti by that drastic of a margin baffles me. ( I know no one mentioned Poti yet but i am sure it was mentioned in the old thread.)

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 07:29 PM
  #8
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
you start calling people stupid and say that everyone here says that the Dunham trade was a "bad" one. Both of you are guilty of mis-quoting and overstating what people think. Maybe you should realize that others here have the same right to their opinions that you do and that no one's opinion is stupid.
I already stated I never called anyone stupid. I have no problems with people stating their opinions. I may agree or dissagree but if there weren't any dissagreements I think this board would be a lot less interesting.


Last edited by Barnaby: 01-01-2004 at 10:10 PM.
Barnaby is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 07:36 PM
  #9
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
I already stated I never called anyone stupid. I have no problems with people stating their opinions. I may agree or dissagree but if there weren't any dissagreements I think this board would be a lot less interesting. I can have a conversation and present arguments. You seem to have a profound desire to talk down to people and cause mean spirited comfrontations. I was never looking to call people names or degrade anyone, and I'm not going to get into that because quite frankly this "stupid" argument is a waste of my time, and I doubt everyone else wants to waste their time reading it.

My advice: Grow up and realize people don't always agree. Life is short, don't waste it attacking people, because they dissagree on a hockey trade.
I guess you missed my first reply to you.

"Sorry, you're right, it's your evil twin who calls everyone stupid. And what fun is agreeing with everyone all the time? You are also very good at sparking confrontations so I would be very wary of throwing stones on the subject."

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 10:09 PM
  #10
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,494
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Barnaby]I already stated I never called anyone stupid. I have no problems with people stating their opinions. I may agree or dissagree but if there weren't any dissagreements I think this board would be a lot less interesting. I can have a conversation and present arguments.

Edit: Sorry for the previous post :/
QUOTE]

Barnaby is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 12:45 AM
  #11
BLACKBURN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Come on kids, play nice. Whats the purpose of this thread? You shouldnt call people stupid but then making a snitch thread is even worse in my opinion. Lets talk about interesting things like how many secret kids Mess has from the glory days and how many more play-offs we are going to miss under Sather

BLACKBURN is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 04:23 AM
  #12
RANGERDIEHARD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 929
vCash: 500
Brooklyn Ranger....

starting this thread makes me believe that you may be somewhat defensive on this subject. Of course I could be wrong so I'll just ask you - how good do you think Zidlicky is as a player now and how good do you think he will be? In your opinion who do you think made the better trade? I'm asking out of curiosity.

RANGERDIEHARD is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 04:37 AM
  #13
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RANGERDIEHARD
starting this thread makes me believe that you may be somewhat defensive on this subject.
And starrting a thread by putting words in the mouths of Sathers detractors by suggesting we thought Zidlicky would be the next "Lidstrom" isn't defensive??

Correct, it's offensive..

In a Ranger hockey related way only at least..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 06:02 AM
  #14
RANGERDIEHARD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
And starrting a thread by putting words in the mouths of Sathers detractors by suggesting we thought Zidlicky would be the next "Lidstrom" isn't defensive??

Correct, it's offensive..

In a Ranger hockey related way only at least..

Actually the point of the thread was to expose all of the posters who over-react and who try and put a negative spin on ALMOST every possible situation. The original Zidlicky thread was started to track his performance throughout the year....well why hasn't anyone posted anything recently?
The reference to people comparing him to Lidstrom was an exageration; read the original post and I'll let you decide what people thought of him at the time.

RANGERDIEHARD is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 06:15 AM
  #15
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RANGERDIEHARD
Actually the point of the thread was to expose all of the posters who over-react and who try and put a negative spin on ALMOST every possible situation. The original Zidlicky thread was started to track his performance throughout the year....well why hasn't anyone posted anything recently?
The reference to people comparing him to Lidstrom was an exageration; read the original post and I'll let you decide what people thought of him at the time.
The original thread might have been for tracking purposes, but if you read the posts by the same people you suggest (through exaggeration) were touting Marik as a big time player, you will see the error of your ways.

It was and remains an issue of Sather's mismanagment of Ranger assets..

Both Dunham and Zidlicky were playing very well at the beginning of the year, and have tailed off since..

But the point remains, three assets were squandered for a goalie who has played well, but could not change the fortunes of a team that needed a change in the core for the future, NOT 1 player to try to sneak them into the 8th seed..

The point was not to tout Zidlicky, it was to use him as Exhibit A of how Sather has misused players like him and bundle a few to send away for single players that cannot make this team any better than its dysfunctional core..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 06:44 AM
  #16
RANGERDIEHARD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
The original thread might have been for tracking purposes, but if you read the posts by the same people you suggest (through exaggeration) were touting Marik as a big time player, you will see the error of your ways.

It was and remains an issue of Sather's mismanagment of Ranger assets..

Both Dunham and Zidlicky were playing very well at the beginning of the year, and have tailed off since..

But the point remains, three assets were squandered for a goalie who has played well, but could not change the fortunes of a team that needed a change in the core for the future, NOT 1 player to try to sneak them into the 8th seed..

The point was not to tout Zidlicky, it was to use him as Exhibit A of how Sather has misused players like him and bundle a few to send away for single players that cannot make this team any better than its dysfunctional core..
Davasian you say the point was not to tout Zidlicky - c'mon now, the guy started off really hot and a post was started to see how good he was going to be. Why not start a Pavel Brendl thread then, he could be Exhibit B.
- Dunham was not acquired to "turn" the fortunes of the team around. We were hard up for a #1 goaltender and leaving that responsibility up to a 19 yr old goalie who was not ready is just setting up the young man up for failure.

BTW I'm not pro or anti - Sather, just a Ranger fan with hope and faith.

RANGERDIEHARD is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 06:56 AM
  #17
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RANGERDIEHARD
Davasian you say the point was not to tout Zidlicky - c'mon now, the guy started off really hot and a post was started to see how good he was going to be. Why not start a Pavel Brendl thread then, he could be Exhibit B.
- Dunham was not acquired to "turn" the fortunes of the team around. We were hard up for a #1 goaltender and leaving that responsibility up to a 19 yr old goalie who was not ready is just setting up the young man up for failure.

BTW I'm not pro or anti - Sather, just a Ranger fan with hope and faith.
Actually, Dunham should be "C" with Lindros as "A" and Pavel as "B"..

Dunham, like the others. were indeed acquired to turn the team around, and several young assets were sent to do it.. There's really little other reason to send away several young assets in a deal, except to "turn a team around".. And hard up for a #1 goalie for a team that was playing just like the 10th seed they were made no sense.. If it was setting Blackburn up for failure, then why was he forced to play 19 games in a row?? Why wasn't Holmquist or ANY other goalie in the system even given a sniff to see if they could handle the duties? If he wanted a veteran to help spell Blackburn, there were others available, that likely would have costed minimal returns, maybe just one of the three guys sent for Dunham..

Just like Lindros.. He's playing well now, but how has that really helped the team the last three years?? Kim Johnsson would have precluded a need for Poti, and if he didn't like Hlavac and Brendl, then why not trade them for similiar aged players who would have contributed to a young core? Same with the picks, and same with the Bure deal..

As long as deals like those are made, I have little hope and faith..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 07:20 AM
  #18
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Actually, Dunham should be "C" with Lindros as "A" and Pavel as "B"..

Dunham, like the others. were indeed acquired to turn the team around, and several young assets were sent to do it.. There's really little other reason to send away several young assets in a deal, except to "turn a team around".. And hard up for a #1 goalie for a team that was playing just like the 10th seed they were made no sense.. If it was setting Blackburn up for failure, then why was he forced to play 19 games in a row?? Why wasn't Holmquist or ANY other goalie in the system even given a sniff to see if they could handle the duties? If he wanted a veteran to help spell Blackburn, there were others available, that likely would have costed minimal returns, maybe just one of the three guys sent for Dunham..

Just like Lindros.. He's playing well now, but how has that really helped the team the last three years?? Kim Johnsson would have precluded a need for Poti, and if he didn't like Hlavac and Brendl, then why not trade them for similiar aged players who would have contributed to a young core? Same with the picks, and same with the Bure deal..

As long as deals like those are made, I have little hope and faith..

We got the number 1 center we needed for kim johnsson. Not anything special on offense and nothing spectacular on defense. OR would you guys rather have Nedved as our number 1 center the last few years?

We got rid of Igor Ulanov for Bure. Who wouldnt make that deal? Sure we gave up Novak, but for such a highly touted defenseman by some he sure is having a tough time making the pourous florida defense corps.

Again, we traded a 3rd liner in who we have a younger replacement already(ortmeyer) a marginal player in kloucek because of injuries and a guy that never came over the pond(and some reports said he never wanted to sign with the rangers anyway) for a solid goalie which we needed at the time.

Those are hardly trades that should crush your faith on the team.

I dont want to start another debate about those trades, just giving another view to them.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 07:25 AM
  #19
RANGERDIEHARD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Actually, Dunham should be "C" with Lindros as "A" and Pavel as "B"..

Dunham, like the others. were indeed acquired to turn the team around, and several young assets were sent to do it.. There's really little other reason to send away several young assets in a deal, except to "turn a team around".. And hard up for a #1 goalie for a team that was playing just like the 10th seed they were made no sense.. If it was setting Blackburn up for failure, then why was he forced to play 19 games in a row?? Why wasn't Holmquist or ANY other goalie in the system even given a sniff to see if they could handle the duties? If he wanted a veteran to help spell Blackburn, there were others available, that likely would have costed minimal returns, maybe just one of the three guys sent for Dunham..

Just like Lindros.. He's playing well now, but how has that really helped the team the last three years?? Kim Johnsson would have precluded a need for Poti, and if he didn't like Hlavac and Brendl, then why not trade them for similiar aged players who would have contributed to a young core? Same with the picks, and same with the Bure deal..

As long as deals like those are made, I have little hope and faith..
Well for starters I am very sad to hear that you have liilte hope - I will think about you when I pick up my playoff tickets; hopefully that will be this year .

Blackburn played 19 games in a row at that time because he was the best option and gave the Rangers the best chance of winning games, not Holmquist. If this was the case then Holmquist would have been the backup not Blackie; you don't need me to tell you that. The workload started to wear on him, just like it is with some guy named Fleury in Pittsburgh, and a decision was made.

It is not proven yet that any of those prospects that Sather has traded away are great NHL players, I reaaly don't think having Kim Johnson on the team would've gotten us into the playoffs. The lack of a team system and poor coaching IMO has been the reason.

RANGERDIEHARD is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 07:25 AM
  #20
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
And starrting a thread by putting words in the mouths of Sathers detractors by suggesting we thought Zidlicky would be the next "Lidstrom" isn't defensive??

Correct, it's offensive..

In a Ranger hockey related way only at least..
Wow. Does anyone around here know when to not take things literally?

Anyway, he didnt start the thread calling out specific posters. He started asking what happened to all of the daily zidlicky updates saying he is a stud and the trade was horrible for the rangers.

If you guys cant even admit that the thread was created for DAILY UPDATES ON ZIDLICKY and the entire thread was bashing the rangers for making the trade then you guys will never admit to anything, which is really pathetic.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 07:31 AM
  #21
RANGERDIEHARD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnaby63
Wow. Does anyone around here know when to not take things literally?

Anyway, he didnt start the thread calling out specific posters. He started asking what happened to all of the daily zidlicky updates saying he is a stud and the trade was horrible for the rangers.

If you guys cant even admit that the thread was created for DAILY UPDATES ON ZIDLICKY and the entire thread was bashing the rangers for making the trade then you guys will never admit to anything, which is really pathetic.
We all must be accountable for our actions on these boards

RANGERDIEHARD is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 08:09 AM
  #22
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
The point was not to tout Zidlicky, it was to use him as Exhibit A of how Sather has misused players like him and bundle a few to send away for single players that cannot make this team any better than its dysfunctional core..

Rock on, D.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 08:22 AM
  #23
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnaby63
We got the number 1 center we needed for kim johnsson. Not anything special on offense and nothing spectacular on defense. OR would you guys rather have Nedved as our number 1 center the last few years?

We got rid of Igor Ulanov for Bure. Who wouldnt make that deal? Sure we gave up Novak, but for such a highly touted defenseman by some he sure is having a tough time making the pourous florida defense corps.

Again, we traded a 3rd liner in who we have a younger replacement already(ortmeyer) a marginal player in kloucek because of injuries and a guy that never came over the pond(and some reports said he never wanted to sign with the rangers anyway) for a solid goalie which we needed at the time.

Those are hardly trades that should crush your faith on the team.

I dont want to start another debate about those trades, just giving another view to them.
You don't want to start another debate on these trades, because you fail to look at the full deals and in context of what the entire debate is about..

How has that "#1 Center worked out?? Bure?? even Dunham??

I would rather have had Nedved as a #1 center, or even have him dealt as well so we would have know rebuilding was truly going to happen..

You seem to forget the #1's and other picks sent packing in those deals.. More assets squandered for marginal gain.. Gain that had no effect on the teams record so far as playoffs are concerned..

They don't illicit faith, becuase they're the exact same types of deals that got Smith fired..

He said he'd make the Rangers bigger, younger and faster, he gave us bigger..

Every player and pick sent in those deals can be debated if they would ever have helped the Rangers by themselves, but the crucial part of the issue is they were sent for older, higher risk players, instead of other youngsters..

If he had sent the whole lot of them packing for similiar aged players, then I would not have a problem..

Instead, the payroll gets bigger (which I wouldn't care about..) but the results stay the same..

They could just have easily missed the playoffs with those kids around, but at least then, there may be a few Rangers left to root for, instead of the apathetic mercenaries we get to witness today..

Funny, you want us to admit to the reason behind a thread, but you just can't seem to admit the reasons for the Rangers failures.. Pathetic ineed..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 08:47 AM
  #24
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
I dont look at the deals as a whole? Lets see...

Jan Hlavac(waste), Pavel Brendl(bust) and Kim Johnsson(solid top-4 defenseman) for Eric Lindros.(our best player his first season here when he scored 78 points, 2nd best foward last season and again one of our top players this year)

I am sure you werent complaining about the trade when Lindros scored 78 points his first season. And for all the "troubles" he went through last season he was only a few points behind Nedved, everyone's favorite last season.

You would rather have Nedved? How do you expect to survive in the Eastern Conference with Petr as the top center?


Igor Ulanov(waste), Filip Novak(hasnt proven anything) and a 1st round pick(the most we gave up valuewise) for Pavel Bure and a 3rd round pick. A guy who along with Lindros almost pushed us into the playoffs with 12 goals in 12 games. He also started off good last season but his knees caught up to him.

Rem Murray(replaceable 3rd/4th liner), Tomas Kloucek(bust) and Marek Zidlicky(never wanted to sign with New York and didnt need his type of play anyway) for Mike Dunham. One of the best goalies last season and early this season that helped us win alot of games. But now since he is in a slump and Zidlicky has cooled off(like i said he would) we now have to look at the deal as a whole. Just keep backpedaling.


So we traded Kim Johnsson, Marek Zidlicky and a 1st round draft pick for Mike Dunham, Eric Lindros, Pavel Bure and a 3rd round pick.

Sorry, but i would do that deal everyday of the week.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 09:09 AM
  #25
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnaby63
But now since he is in a slump and Zidlicky has cooled off(like i said he would) we now have to look at the deal as a whole. Just keep backpedaling.


So we traded Kim Johnsson, Marek Zidlicky and a 1st round draft pick for Mike Dunham, Eric Lindros, Pavel Bure and a 3rd round pick.

Sorry, but i would do that deal everyday of the week.
Look again, this is the exact same stance I held in that thread as well..

And talk about backpedaling, you dismiss these guys in hindsight, but at the time dealt, all had decent value, and as I said before, I would not have a problem if they were dealt for simliar aged players, and if there was some semblence of a core being built..

I also thought there was a pick in the Lindros trade, almost positive..

Kim Johnsson, Pavel Brendl, Jan Hlavac, pick, Rem Murray, Thomas Kloucek, Marek Zidlicky, 1st rounder, Philip Novak, Igor Ulanov

For

Lindros, Bure, Dunham and a 3rd.. Bure is done, Lindros has been up and down, more down than up and Dunham has been good for the most part..


Do you seriously think that all those assets listed above could not have been managed better to either develop, or sent for others that could be a part of a young Ranger team right now??

Did any one of those moves lead to the playoffs??

Davisian 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 10:21 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.