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

Was Leetch traded for nothing? Review of the 2004 Deadline Trades

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2007, 08:31 PM
  #26
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
A couple of other points:



Wrong. The deal was for Balej and a 2nd, which became Graham. Pyatt was drafted in 2005. Graham has been underwhelming so far, but, in his defense, his 1st year was basically a lost year, as he had a viral infection, which sapped his energy and stamina. He scored 30+ goals last in Charlotte, and most likely gets a full year in Hartford this year.



Wrong again. The 2nd rounder that went for Korpikoski was the supplemental 2nd rounder from the failure to sign Umberger. The Rangers traded down from this slot and added another 2nd round pick.



Not true. The 2nd rounder from Philly was a 2005 pick, the pick the Rangers used to move up to get Marc Staal. The irony here is that Philly also loved Staal, and because they rented Malakhov, they did not have a 2nd round pick to make the deal they Rangers did.

Dubinsky was drafted with a 2nd round pick that they Rangers traded down to get, and also picked up a 3rd round pick.



Here is the one deal to be angry with Sather over. It was reported that David Poile of Nashville was furious with the Ranger because he offered them two 2nd round picks for Nedved, and there was the insinuation that Sather did Lowe a favor with this deal. The pick the Oilers traded to the Rangers was the supplemental pick they got for losing Brian Leetch as a UFA, a loophole which no longer exists.



The 7th rounder was actually traded back to the Rangers by Calgary in the swap of 1st rounders which allowed the Rangers to draft Korpikoski. The Rangers selected Jonathan Paiement with that 7th round pick.
thank you for making those corrections...it still amazes me how someone brings this up every 2 months takes the time to do a big huge analysis and breakdown of every trade and everytime 75% of the trades are wrong...

i'll also add that that 2nd rounder in the barnaby deal was traded down twice, so we got dubinsky, bahensky and billy ryan out of that deal.

NYR469 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 08:37 PM
  #27
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,419
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469 View Post
thank you for making those corrections...it still amazes me how someone brings this up every 2 months takes the time to do a big huge analysis and breakdown of every trade and everytime 75% of the trades are wrong...

i'll also add that that 2nd rounder in the barnaby deal was traded down twice, so we got dubinsky, bahensky and billy ryan out of that deal.
I really wish people would search the forums for similar posts before making a new thread. I mean honestly, if you're going to rehash a thread for the 453426th time, you ought to at least strive for accuracy, no?

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 08:44 PM
  #28
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,261
vCash: 500
If you count what any of those players would have done for us between then and now AND the fact that most of them don't play anymore. It was mostly addition by subtraction. Anyone remember that we won alot more games playing the young unproven players once all those trades were made.

We won those trades even if we only get Dubinsky and Sauer out of it. Not sure if you mentioned that we used one of those second rounders to trade up for Marc Staal. That also is an important part of it.

DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 08:57 PM
  #29
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
The Leetch trade, was important because it signified the end of the old regime, it would not be business as usual, a new direction was taken. So yes, most of these players did not work out, but Sather & the coaching staff was able to get as much as they could out of these players, on the ice & in trade vaule.

So, No, the Leetch trade was not for nothing.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 09:14 PM
  #30
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Well, I'm glad we dumped our best defenseman in return for a "sign" that we are changing.

Think back 3.5 years. If someone told you that Leetch will only bring us back a prospect who's barely in our top-10, if that high, wouldn't you have been disappointed? Didn't you hope for more?

Didn't you hope that people like Rucinsky, Simon, Barnaby, DeVries, Nedved and Kovalev would bring something useful back and not just a "sign of change"? Didn't you hope for REAL assets in return?

Didn't you hope that of all the prospects that Sather got, at least ONE would play on the third line or better (Betts is on the 4th line and every other prospect with a chance to make it was drafted with the picks, rather than acquired himself).


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thomas J. View Post
The Leetch trade, was important because it signified the end of the old regime, it would not be business as usual, a new direction was taken. So yes, most of these players did not work out, but Sather & the coaching staff was able to get as much as they could out of these players, on the ice & in trade vaule.

So, No, the Leetch trade was not for nothing.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 09:16 PM
  #31
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,419
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Well, I'm glad we dumped our best defenseman in return for a prospect who may become a second liner, but may not even make it at all.

Think back 3.5 years. If someone told you that this is how the trade would work out, wouldn't you have been disappointed? Didn't you hope for more?

Didn't you hope that people like Simon, Barnaby, Nedved and Kovalev would bring something useful back?
If someone told me that the fire sale of 2004 would have us making the playoffs in both '06 and '07, and being considered a favorite for the '08 Cup, I'd be thrilled.

We can analyze the past all ****ing day, but there's really no point. We're in a good spot now and the important thing is to concentrate on the state of the team going forward, not what was or what could have been. There's no reason to revisit '04 again unless you're looking to bash/praise Sather, which is another thing that we've devoted some 346546756 threads to.

I cannot wait for the season to start, so there's actually discussion of substance to be had!

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 09:20 PM
  #32
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Well, I'm glad we dumped our best defenseman in return for a "sign" that we are changing.

Think back 3.5 years. If someone told you that Leetch will only bring us back a prospect who's barely in our top-10, if that high, wouldn't you have been disappointed? Didn't you hope for more?

Didn't you hope that people like Simon, Barnaby, Nedved and Kovalev would bring something useful back and not just a "sign of change"?
You didn't even know who was traded for what and no you want to sit here and preach about fair value?

come on..

Hindsight is 20/20....The Rangers did the right thing trading every single one of those players...they are now starting to reap the rewards from those drafts.....

The Rangers did the right thing trading leetch....for the organization and for the Leetch himself...3 years since the rebuild started and the rangers are a stanley cup contender.....what is there to complain about? do you understand not all prospects turn into players?

whats your next thread going to be Jessiman shouldn't have been taken over Stoll in the 2004 draft?

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:05 PM
  #33
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Ok, did what I mix up matter all that much? The overall point stands no matter the little mistakes.

Did I forget how we acquired Thornton or something? No.

The point is that other than Leetch, Sather traded 7 players and all he got was Betts and Dubinsky for them. Didn't you hope for better at the time?

The Leetch trade may still work out if Sauer and Korp reach their max potential, but they probably will not.

Again, the point stands. It's not as if I forgot who we got, I just mixed up one second rounder for another, but the players we got vs. the players we lost was accurate.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
You didn't even know who was traded for what and no you want to sit here and preach about fair value?

come on..

Hindsight is 20/20....The Rangers did the right thing trading every single one of those players...they are now starting to reap the rewards from those drafts.....

The Rangers did the right thing trading leetch....for the organization and for the Leetch himself...3 years since the rebuild started and the rangers are a stanley cup contender.....what is there to complain about? do you understand not all prospects turn into players?

whats your next thread going to be Jessiman shouldn't have been taken over Stoll in the 2004 draft?

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:11 PM
  #34
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Sather's acquisitions of young players, through trade or draft, have NOTHING to do with our success.

Which of the young players he got or drafted with all the second rounders from 2004 will play a key role? Betts will play on the 4th line, that's it.

He got lucky with Lundy, Prucha, etc who got drafted late and exceeded expectations. He made some good signings like Rosie and Straka. The Jagr trade was phenomenal.

But all the youth he acquired played no role for us so far. If we had just lost all those players as free agents, nothing in 2007-2008 would change, except we'd probably have Ortmeyer instead of Betts.


Last edited by Beacon: 09-03-2007 at 10:20 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:16 PM
  #35
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,419
vCash: 500
Awards:
BrooklynHockey, can I ask what you hope to accomplish with this thread? We've had this very same debate on this forum a number of different times, and pretty much everyone had their opinion and is sticking to it.

Is your point that Sather dropped the ball? If so, there are some people that might agree with you. On the other hand, a lot of people think he got decent value. Either way, it's ancient history. Why focus on this now? We've assembled our best team in years, the season is right around the corner, and you want to go back a analyze how successful our trades were four years ago? Seriously, if this hadn't been discussed ad nauseum here you might be getting interesting discussion, but at this point everything that can be said on this matter has been said (and repeated).

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:26 PM
  #36
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Nothing to accomplish at all. I've been visiting this board for days without seeing anything new at all, and starting a debate may bring it alive a little bit. I know this was already debated, but I came up with a new angle: how it all worked out in the end, not what was proper value in March 2004.

But yes, I do believe that sather dropped the ball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
BrooklynHockey, can I ask what you hope to accomplish with this thread? We've had this very same debate on this forum a number of different times, and pretty much everyone had their opinion and is sticking to it.

Is your point that Sather dropped the ball? If so, there are some people that might agree with you. On the other hand, a lot of people think he got decent value. Either way, it's ancient history. Why focus on this now? We've assembled our best team in years, the season is right around the corner, and you want to go back a analyze how successful our trades were four years ago? Seriously, if this hadn't been discussed ad nauseum here you might be getting interesting discussion, but at this point everything that can be said on this matter has been said (and repeated).

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:34 PM
  #37
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,419
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Nothing to accomplish at all. I've been visiting this board for days without seeing anything new at all, and starting a debate may bring it alive a little bit. I know this was already debated, but I came up with a new angle: how it all worked out in the end, not what was proper value in March 2004.

But yes, I do believe that sather dropped the ball.
I'll tell you right now that we've discussed numerous times, be it in devoted threads or through semi-OT conversation, how exactly the trades worked out "in the end." So really, it's not a new angle at all. IIRC, we had this exact same discussion about this time last season.

I use the quotes to indicate it's silly to say "in the end," since there's every possibility that Korpikoski becomes a shutdown 2nd line winger, Dubinsky and Pyatt our second and third line centers of the future, Sauer a terrific second pairing defenseman, etc... There's also a very really chance that they all fail to make an impact at the NHL level. It is STILL too early to determine winners and losers in these trades from a talent standpoint.

Additionally, as many have said, cleaning house was a necessity even if we got little in return. Shedding the dead weight allowed us to move the franchise forward and in a different direction, based around youth and new faces. Maybe we could have done better in a few trades, maybe not. Again, ancient history... I know it's tough waiting for the regular season to start but hang in there man.

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:36 PM
  #38
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
You wait 12 minutes and then bump your post?

****...enough said. If you want attention, put on a pair of heals and streak naked down Broadway.

Random, ignorant post.

BigE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:38 PM
  #39
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,419
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
You wait 12 minutes and then bump your post?

****...enough said. If you want attention, put on a pair of heals and streak naked down Broadway.

Random, ignorant post.
You haven't been around here much lately E, what gives?

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:44 PM
  #40
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
And your post is exactly what happens when a person without the slightest idea of the concept of logical reasoning thinks he's smart.

1. I did not look at the trades the way previous posts did. Before we discussed if it made sense in 2004. Trading Marchant, who was just drafted in the 8th round, for MacTavish made sense in 1994. But for the 1997-1998 team when Marchant was a good player and MacTavish was retired, the trade was pretty bad. So there are two different perspectives to look at it.

2. The rest of your post is either a result of you not reading what I wrote or not being particularly smart.

I wrote - several times - that the players who were traded had to be traded. My problem isn't trading Kovalev, my problem is trading Balej.

3. On the same note, I said that I know that prospects don't all pan out. But one would think that more 3.5 years later, we'd have more than just one fourth line center to show for 8 impact NHLers. I never said that all of them should've panned out, but come on, would it be too much to have one guy on the second line and 1-2 role players?

Yes, we still have a few prospects left, but as we both agree, not all prospects pan out. At least 90% of the time prospects are overrated when it comes to their NHL potential (even if they are underrated as compared to other prospects).

People who follow prospects usually tend to be young and get very excited when someone scores 90 points in CHL or a point a game in NCAA or in Russia. Unfortunately, more often than not, it translates into nothing at the NHL level. A few years from now, you too will learn that.

Betts is really nothing. We can get a player as good as Betts any day of the week, either through free agency without paying too much or in a trade without giving up too much in return. If we didn't have Betts, we'd probably have kept Ortmeyer, who was about as good.

So far, as a result of the 2004 deadline trades, we got nothing that will have long-term impact on the team.

Maybe Korp. Maybe Dubi. Maybe Pyatt. Maybe Sauer. Maybe not.

Three+ years after the trades, all we have to say is that now we have Betts (instead of Ortmeyer).

Are you honestly going to tell me that in March 2004, you didn't expect us to have a little more than that in return for those 8 players?

It's not a matter of do we trade Leetch, Kovalev, Nedved, etc... it's a matter of Sather being able to trade well and then use his picks wisely.
It's hard to accept someone criticizing others for not being logical, when in discussing the deals, you don't have the information right. You're not exactly standing on firm ground for such an argument. I read your post, and found too many factual flaws. When half the players drafted make up the top ten of the Rangers prospect base, a base considered very strong by most observers, and, one in particular, Marc Staal, (a player you continue to neglect), is a result of the those trades, (in specific, Malakhov for Kozak and a 2nd round pick in 2005, which was used to trade up to get Staal, who is not only the Rangers best prospect, but, agreed to be one of the best in all of hockey, and could impact the Rangers as early as this year), then most fair-minded would agree that the trades made that time did have an impact on this franchise.

When those deals were made, no one expected that the players the Rangers acquired were going to be impacts players. But, for a barren farm system, it give the franchise depth, something they did not have since the early 90's. Because they had extra draft picks, and used them to fortify the system, they had enough assets to make deals fill holes in the short term, (the trade for Sykora, a short term fix which helped the Rangers make the playoffs for the first time in 7 years), trade from depth to take a chance on a players whose skills were not readily available in the system, (trading Dom Moore, a 4th center, whose abilities were more than duplicated within the system, for Adam Hall; the deal didn't work, but, to Sather's credit he ended up turning Hall eventually into Alex Bourret), or go out and trade for a key component of last year's playoff team, (and hopefully, this year's Cup winner), Avery, who the Rangers acquired by giving up Marc-Andre Cliche, a player they were able to trade down for, because they had extra 2nd round picks in 2005.

Could the Rangers have gotten better players in 2004? Considering what an under-achieving squad that was, I'm not sure what people expected to get in return. Leetch got the going rate for a 37-year-old former #1 D-man, past his prime. Check the returns on Bourque and Blake when they were dealt, as well as what Boston gave up for Gonchar, a player six years younger than Leetch. Pulling both a #1 and a #2, plus two other assets, was actually about as much as the Rangers could expect to get.

Oh, thanks for the history lesson. In my 30+ years of watching hockey, I failed to grasp the idea that not all prospects work. I was wondering what happened to Alexei Vasiliev and Rudy Vercik. But, now I guess I have you to thank for pointing that out.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:50 PM
  #41
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,419
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
It's hard to accept someone criticizing others for not being logical, when in discussing the deals, you don't have the information right. You're not exactly standing on firm ground for such an argument. I read your post, and found too many factual flaws. When half the players drafted make up the top ten of the Rangers prospect base, a base considered very strong by most observers, and, one in particular, Marc Staal, (a player you continue to neglect), is a result of the those trades, (in specific, Malakhov for Kozak and a 2nd round pick in 2005, which was used to trade up to get Staal, who is not only the Rangers best prospect, but, agreed to be one of the best in all of hockey, and could impact the Rangers as early as this year), then most fair-minded would agree that the trades made that time did have an impact on this franchise.

When those deals were made, no one expected that the players the Rangers acquired were going to be impacts players. But, for a barren farm system, it give the franchise depth, something they did not have since the early 90's. Because they had extra draft picks, and used them to fortify the system, they had enough assets to make deals fill holes in the short term, (the trade for Sykora, a short term fix which helped the Rangers make the playoffs for the first time in 7 years), trade from depth to take a chance on a players whose skills were not readily available in the system, (trading Dom Moore, a 4th center, whose abilities were more than duplicated within the system, for Adam Hall; the deal didn't work, but, to Sather's credit he ended up turning Hall eventually into Alex Bourret), or go out and trade for a key component of last year's playoff team, (and hopefully, this year's Cup winner), Avery, who the Rangers acquired by giving up Marc-Andre Cliche, a player they were able to trade down for, because they had extra 2nd round picks in 2005.

Could the Rangers have gotten better players in 2004? Considering what an under-achieving squad that was, I'm not sure what people expected to get in return. Leetch got the going rate for a 37-year-old former #1 D-man, past his prime. Check the returns on Bourque and Blake when they were dealt, as well as what Boston gave up for Gonchar, a player six years younger than Leetch. Pulling both a #1 and a #2, plus two other assets, was actually about as much as the Rangers could expect to get.

Oh, thanks for the history lesson. In my 30+ years of watching hockey, I failed to grasp the idea that not all prospects work. I was wondering what happened to Alexei Vasiliev and Rudy Vercik. But, now I guess I have you to thank for pointing that out.
Wow.

Incredibly well put man.


Last edited by nyr2k2: 09-03-2007 at 10:55 PM.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 10:58 PM
  #42
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469 View Post
thank you for making those corrections...it still amazes me how someone brings this up every 2 months takes the time to do a big huge analysis and breakdown of every trade and everytime 75% of the trades are wrong...

i'll also add that that 2nd rounder in the barnaby deal was traded down twice, so we got dubinsky, bahensky and billy ryan out of that deal.

I know, how many times have done this now? Usually, Rangerboy is on top of this. I tried finding the actual trade that day, but came up empty. (The trade out of the #37 slot, and the trade out of the Edmonton pick at #41 are the ones I'm still fuzzy on, but the end result was still the selections of Dubinsky, Byers, Ryan and Bahensky.)

BTW, where you been...vacation?

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 11:13 PM
  #43
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,039
vCash: 500
Excellent Work Jas. Nice re-cap.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 11:24 PM
  #44
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
in hindsight, that this team could've gotten more for Leetch and Kovalev; Simon seemed to have been a home run, even without Moore becoming anything, and Barnaby was a shot, that's about all you could expect.
We had a chance to trade Leetch in 01 for a good package, Colorado from what I heard was looking at him before LA put Blake on the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
And your post is exactly what happens when a person without the slightest idea of the concept of logical reasoning thinks he's smart.

1. I did not look at the trades the way previous posts did. Before we discussed if it made sense in 2004. Trading Marchant, who was just drafted in the 8th round, for MacTavish made sense in 1994. But for the 1997-1998 team when Marchant was a good player and MacTavish was retired, the trade was pretty bad. So there are two different perspectives to look at it.
So you're telling me from that post, you'd rather have Todd Marchant over the 94 cup?

Marchant if you ask me has not been anything more than a good 3rd line center at the NHL level, with one good season.

Now if you were talking about Amonte, Weight, or Gartner (I still think we could have won the cup with Gartner over Anderson), then you have a different story but still... I take the cup over the player.

Quote:
2. The rest of your post is either a result of you not reading what I wrote or not being particularly smart.

I wrote - several times - that the players who were traded had to be traded. My problem isn't trading Kovalev, my problem is trading Balej.
Where is Balej?

Quote:
3. On the same note, I said that I know that prospects don't all pan out. But one would think that more 3.5 years later, we'd have more than just one fourth line center to show for 8 impact NHLers. I never said that all of them should've panned out, but come on, would it be too much to have one guy on the second line and 1-2 role players?
No because it helped free up cap space and created prospect depth in the process.

Think of it, if we kept all of those guys... would we have been able to sign Straka, Nylander, etc... would we have Gomez and Drury now?

I could be wrong, but I'm leaning towards no.

I'd also rather take the chance on potential over washed up "impact" players. Leetch wasn't at that level anymore. Simon stopped fighting after a while, and now resorts to trying out for the Yankees. Kovalev was a waste of space, and should have never been brought back. Thank god the return we sent the other way was worth nothing in reality.

Quote:
Yes, we still have a few prospects left, but as we both agree, not all prospects pan out. At least 90% of the time prospects are overrated when it comes to their NHL potential (even if they are underrated as compared to other prospects).
Still rather take the chance of that than have a waste of roster and cap space inhabit the NHL team. At least if the prospect doesn't pan out, we can fill his place with a free agent or trade the prospect to a team looking for depth willing to take the chance on the prospect needing a change of scenery for an impact player.

Quote:
People who follow prospects usually tend to be young and get very excited when someone scores 90 points in CHL or a point a game in NCAA or in Russia. Unfortunately, more often than not, it translates into nothing at the NHL level. A few years from now, you too will learn that.
I think most of us know this already, but just simply refuse to take back to the darker days.

Quote:
Betts is really nothing. We can get a player as good as Betts any day of the week, either through free agency without paying too much or in a trade without giving up too much in return. If we didn't have Betts, we'd probably have kept Ortmeyer, who was about as good.
Betts is better offensively. Ortmeyer was just a better penalty killer, Betts is smarter with and without the puck, although he needs to pass more.

Quote:
So far, as a result of the 2004 deadline trades, we got nothing that will have long-term impact on the team.
That is still yet to be determined, as Dubinsky, Sauer, Staal, and Korpikoski are bi-products of those trades.

Quote:
Three+ years after the trades, all we have to say is that now we have Betts (instead of Ortmeyer).
Ortmeyer will be missed on the PK, and should have been kept over Hollweg, who does nothing but take stupid penalties when he's not getting two-handed in the head by Simon.

Quote:
Are you honestly going to tell me that in March 2004, you didn't expect us to have a little more than that in return for those 8 players?
If you told me we'd be where we are now back then, I'd be more than happy.

Quote:
It's not a matter of do we trade Leetch, Kovalev, Nedved, etc... it's a matter of Sather being able to trade well and then use his picks wisely.
Well, the one thing I am dissapointed in is that we could have had Smid, Meszaros, Wolski, or Zajac over Korps. Meszaros and Wolski would look really good, and I am a fan of Zajac, and have been since he was a Fighting Sioux, my favorite NCAA team.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 11:48 PM
  #45
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
If I recall correctly, we had this exact same discussion about this time last season.
So didn't things change since then? We have re-votes on prospects every few months, right?

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2007, 11:58 PM
  #46
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
And your post is exactly what happens when a person without the slightest idea of the concept of logical reasoning thinks he's smart.

<<So you're telling me from that post, you'd rather have Todd Marchant over the 94 cup?>>

No, it was just how you look it. Overall, the trade made sense. It certainly did for 1994 and overall for the history of the Rangers. But if you look at it for another period, it wasn't good for that particularly year.

It was an analogy.

Let me put it this way. If you can trade Prucha for an 8th round pick, it's a terrible trade. But if the #8 turns into someone like Lundqvist or Luc Robitaille, then the trade worked out well for you even if the original trade was stupid.

Likewise, if you trade Avery for a top-5 pick, that's a great trade. But if the pick turns into Brendl or Chizowski, then in the end, it didn't work out well for you.

So there are two ways of looking at it:

1. Was the trade a good idea?

2. Did it work out in the end?

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2007, 12:11 AM
  #47
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
"Are you honestly going to tell me that in March 2004, you didn't expect us to have a little more than that in return for those 8 players?"
If you told me we'd be where we are now back then, I'd be more than happy.>>

That's a politician's answer. "Q: Are you pro-life or pro-choice? A: I wish there were fewer abortion." Yes, but we still don't know if you want to end it legally. Same here.

Your answer is essentially, "who cares what we prospects we got ... at least the team is doing well." True, but it's doing well because of Shanny, JJ, Lundy, Straka, Rosie, etc... nothing to do with 3/04. Some of them were good signings. Some were just luck (Lundy, Prucha). None were a result of 3/04.

In fact, not a single person said that he's satisfied with how the prospects we got turned out. Some argue that the jury is still out on some prospects, but nobody can disagree that ALL the prospects we got are busts, Betts being the only exception but he's a minor part of the team.

Sather made some good signings, but it doesn't change the fact that he knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about judging prospects.

If GMs weren't willing to give him anything better than Kondratiev and Giroux, then just take mid-round picks and take a stab at long shots with high potential. Some of them become Luc Robitaille, Marc Savard and Mike York. Surely, I would prefer a 4-6 round pick over an AHLer.

But Sather must've thought that Helminen, Immonen, Balej and others were going to become solid NHLers... not all of them, but at least 1 or 2.

Honestly, 3.5 years ago, I thought that at least 1-2 of the prospects he got would turn into second liners. Turns out that none of them did. Right now, our hopes are pinned on the post draft picks after the 03-04 season, but all the pre'04 draftees have busted. All of them (except Betts).

That nobody here is answering that, "yes, in March 2004 I was hoping that we would have gotten exactly what we got" is a sign that you know I'm right.

That's why your answer is essentially, "who cares what we prospects we got ... at least the team is doing well." True, but it's doing well because of Shanny, JJ, Lundy, Straka, Rosie, etc... nothing to do with 3/04.


Last edited by Beacon: 09-04-2007 at 12:30 AM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2007, 12:17 AM
  #48
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
"It is STILL too early to determine winners and losers in these trades from a talent standpoint. "

It's too early for SOME draftees. But the prospects we got in 3/04 are already known. What do you still expect Kondratiev, Immonen, Kozak, Moore, Balej, Helminen?

Do you REALLY think it's too early to judge them?

All the people who are still left to be judged were picks that were acquired. All the prospects we got CAN be judged as busts.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2007, 08:42 AM
  #49
towely
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: new jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
"It is STILL too early to determine winners and losers in these trades from a talent standpoint. "

It's too early for SOME draftees. But the prospects we got in 3/04 are already known. What do you still expect Kondratiev, Immonen, Kozak, Moore, Balej, Helminen?

Do you REALLY think it's too early to judge them?

All the people who are still left to be judged were picks that were acquired. All the prospects we got CAN be judged as busts.
i still do not understand your reasoning brooky, you keep looking at it from the perspective of what we got in those trades.
when its more about it started the proccess of what we have today.

there are ten pluses for that fire sale for every negitive, as i said before as painfull as it was it was the best thing to happen to this team and quite frankly started something i have never seen this team do in the 37 years following them which is building the organization as a whole from the ground up.

this team has always bought players and built its team via trades and any life long ranger fan knows that has not gotten us much.
now we have a solid team with a potent farm system.
look at the team last year when someone got injured we had some young pup step up from the farm to help out until the injured player returned.
look at the simple fact that we have a pretty good team and as our older players careers end we have people that are being groomed to replace them.
when did this team ever have that.

i remember back in the early 90's after we got mess the team was built around the current roster and if someone got hurt we were doomed.
if mess could not play we lost when leetch got hurt we lost, the team back then was so one dimensional because we had no one to put in if we lost someone due to injury and all we could do was hope they returned soon.

today we have a solid team and when someone gets injured we have more options then we ever had and thanks to guys like coach shoey who had the young pups ready for action when we needed players due to injury.

i loved brian leetch and always will, i built my style of play around his and he will always be my favorite ranger.
but i am glad it all happened and turned out the way it did and after 37 years of following the team and seeing one championship my only question is why did it take so dam long and was not done sooner.

i think its best for the fans,the team and brian leetch if this matter was put to rest and hopefully the raiseing of his jersey in the garden will start the healing proccess and put it all behind us so we can focus on why it is we love leetch and not on how he left.

lets not keep beating the dead horse.

towely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2007, 09:32 AM
  #50
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,934
vCash: 500
I love Leetch, always will.

But to me the trade and the "fire-sale" was more about the direction the Rangers decided to go in rather than the long-term results from that trade alone.

Though they really had no choice but to do something at the time, they actually did it and it took some balls to do. It sucked at the time to see Leetch go, and it still hurts, not because he simply left the team but how Sather and the Rangers handled it, not telling him and all. That was handled badly and Leetch still resents that to this day im sure. He was crushed. But maybe that was the only way to get it done.

Either way, from a fans standpoint that will definitely be looked upon as a turning point in Rangers history and in some way Leetch might gain even more honor in his career as a Ranger - when he became somewhat of a sacrificial lamb for what would be the future rejuvenation of the team.

If the Rangers do something special in the next few years (and their prospect depth and "focus" has already made that leap) I think that moment in time, specifically that trade - will be vindicated. To me its more about that then the progression and ultimate output each prospect achieved.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:30 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.