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

Brodie Dupont

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2007, 01:26 AM
  #1
ahimsa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,959
vCash: 500
Brodie Dupont

http://blogs.msg.com/gameon/2007/09/...s-prosp-3.html

Multi talented guy. Pretty good player and now an announcer too.

ahimsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 02:42 AM
  #2
NYRJurgen88
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to NYRJurgen88
i think Brodie can be a really good player for us. I like his size, aggression and skill set as well as the fact he has shown good leadership skills. If he can develop well over the next season or two in Hartford then we might have a really good player make the jump. fingers crossed!

NYRJurgen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 02:51 AM
  #3
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,149
vCash: 500
Brodie has future nhler written all over him. the only question is on what line he would play. unfortunately this organization has gotten to the point where it is so deep that even if we dont sign any future free agents and let all the old players go when their contracts expire, we will STILL have a hard time getting brodie into the lineup.

i mean, youve percievably got drury and gomez for sure. then one of prucha or dawes, possibly both. cherepanov, anisimov, dubinsky, korpedo, callahan, possibly avery since he is still very young and very important, and probably marcel hossa if he produces this year. thats not counting the guys like byers, moore, betts, hollweg, orr, pyatt etc.


its a good problem to have, but what its going to do is cause some of the lower prospects to be traded away in strengthening moves a-la marc andre cliche.

i just hope dupont stays, like i said, i like character guys, and i like guys that can play. he can do both.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 02:55 AM
  #4
NYRJurgen88
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to NYRJurgen88
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
Brodie has future nhler written all over him. the only question is on what line he would play. unfortunately this organization has gotten to the point where it is so deep that even if we dont sign any future free agents and let all the old players go when their contracts expire, we will STILL have a hard time getting brodie into the lineup.

i mean, youve percievably got drury and gomez for sure. then one of prucha or dawes, possibly both. cherepanov, anisimov, dubinsky, korpedo, callahan, possibly avery since he is still very young and very important, and probably marcel hossa if he produces this year. thats not counting the guys like byers, moore, betts, hollweg, orr, pyatt etc.


its a good problem to have, but what its going to do is cause some of the lower prospects to be traded away in strengthening moves a-la marc andre cliche.

i just hope dupont stays, like i said, i like character guys, and i like guys that can play. he can do both.
i agree. its a nice position to be in, and one we havent been in for a long time.

Dupont seems to have a lot to him, character, size, aggression, skill, leadership and scoring...the next big step comes as if he can bring it to the pros.... i think he can.

He think he translates into a strong two way player. He could be a great compliment to a skilled guy like Cherepanov in a few yrs. His body guard and the guy that works the corners but one that still troubles the scoreboard...

NYRJurgen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 10:20 AM
  #5
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,344
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Yeah, we have a ton of depth, but the question is, are we sitting on a gold mine, or a pile of ****? No question it's better than it's ever been, but we can't be sure; we all thought Brendl, Lundmark and Blackburn were the future... OK, Blackburn got hurt, but remember guys like Holmqvist and Yeremeyev?

Dubinsky -- everyone believes that even if he hits the floor, he'll be a bottom-six NHLer. That might not be the case, in fact, perhaps that's hjis absolute ceiling. As of now, our only sure material would be Staal, Girardi, Callahan and maybe Korpikoski.

We do have good prospects, but I wouldn't call us "sellers" yet. That's reserved for teams like the Pens and Caps. We're more like street vendrs; we can sell limited value assets... if you had Shaone Morrison or Michel Ouellet, would you trade them without a second thought? We still couldn't afford to do so. So we don't have that good of a problem yet.

Guys like Orr, Hollweg, Pock, Moore, Hutchinson have 0 trade value in and of themselves. Duponts, Betts' and Pyatts have very limited value. Even Dawes doesn't have high intrinsic, solitary value. Staal, Montoya and Bourret are the only ones that would yield an undisputably "good" return (Cherepanov would be a wild card).

Our prospect pool is dazzling, but largely unproven.


Last edited by BobMarleyNYR: 09-11-2007 at 10:27 AM.
BobMarleyNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 10:26 AM
  #6
NYRJurgen88
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to NYRJurgen88
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMarleyNYR View Post
Yeah, we have a ton of depth, but the question is, are we sitting on a gold mine, or a pile of ****? No question it's better than it's ever been, but we can't be sure; we all thought Brendl, Lundmark and Blackburn were the future... OK, Blackburn got hurt, but remember guys like Holmqvist and Yeremeyev?

Dubinsky -- everyone believes that even if he hits the floor, he'll be a bottom-six NHLer. That might not be the case, in fact, perhaps that's hjis absolute ceiling. As of now, our only sure material would be Staal, Girardi, Callahan and maybe Korpikoski.

We do have good prospects, but I wouldn't call us "sellers" yet. That's reserved for teams like the Pens and Caps. We're more like street vendrs; we can sell limited value assets... if you had Shaone Morrison or Michel Ouellet, would you trade them without a second thought? We still couldn't afford to do so. So we don't have that good of a problem yet.

Guys like Orr, Hollweg, Pock, Hutchinson have 0 trade value in and of themselves. Duponts, Betts' and Pyatts have very limited valie. Even Dawes doesn't have high intinsic, solitary value. Staal, Montoya and Bourret are the only ones that would yield an undisputably "good" return (Cherepanov would be a wild card).

Our prospect pool is dazzling, but largey unproven.
i'd put our prospects up against the Caps any day especially now that BAckstrom is on their roster... yes our prospects are unproven but so are every teams unproven....if you are talking bapout proving things before they reach the pro level then alot of ours have ALREADY PROVED things. Pyatt and Dawes, Montoya and Korpikoski have all had success at the WJC's and Montoya and Dawes have gone on to continue success in the minor pro's.

WHat do you mean by unproven?

Pyatt has alot of value IMO. A great 2 years, good rep. as a model athlete, a good international career etc etc...

Brendl was a bust granted but Lundmark and Blackburn were genuinely good players and yes. the future, but were then rushed and/ or burnt out (DB) due to our poor playing roster.

and Dubinsky is juts as good a prospect as a Micheal Quellet.

...and you forgot Bobby Sanguinetti and Sauer, they've both had excellent careers in junior and have given no indication that wont continue.

NYRJurgen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 10:41 AM
  #7
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
Brodie has future nhler written all over him. the only question is on what line he would play. unfortunately this organization has gotten to the point where it is so deep that even if we dont sign any future free agents and let all the old players go when their contracts expire, we will STILL have a hard time getting brodie into the lineup.

i mean, youve percievably got drury and gomez for sure. then one of prucha or dawes, possibly both. cherepanov, anisimov, dubinsky, korpedo, callahan, possibly avery since he is still very young and very important, and probably marcel hossa if he produces this year. thats not counting the guys like byers, moore, betts, hollweg, orr, pyatt etc.


its a good problem to have, but what its going to do is cause some of the lower prospects to be traded away in strengthening moves a-la marc andre cliche.

i just hope dupont stays, like i said, i like character guys, and i like guys that can play. he can do both.
eh, i think that depth will afford us to develop these guys the right way...and if we do that they have huge value for our organization either way

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 10:48 AM
  #8
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,344
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
I agree with much of what you're saying, BUT...

Our best minor pro guys are very inconsistent -- I know they're young, but many young players are rock-solid in the A. Tournaments a good prospect do not make.

Other GMs look at a guy like Pyatt and say, "good ability, smart, fast, excellent athlete. Wish we had him." Then they say, "but he's small and soft." I know those things aren't of utmost importance by new NHL standards, but as a prospect, they depreciate your value.

Ouellet was billed as a top six foward from the get-go. What's Dubinsky billed as? Some people say top six, some people say 3rd liner, some people say 2nd 3rd liner (which, IMO, are worlds apart). It's hard to compare the two, but Ouellet WAS a better prospect than Dubinsky IS. That's not to say Dubisky won't be a better player.

Sauer's stock has dropped a bit, IMO. Sanguinetti is the biggest question mark after Anisimov -- he's as fragile as they come and he'll have to live and die by his offense.

BobMarleyNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 10:52 AM
  #9
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
i think brodie is gonna be a big time fan favorite in a few years...his game reminds me alot of adam graves (minus the 50 goal season). as long as his skill translates to the pro level he's one of those heart & soul warriors that you need to win...

NYR469 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 11:01 AM
  #10
nrf83
Registered User
 
nrf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: golf course
Country: United States
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRJurgen88 View Post
i'd put our prospects up against the Caps any day especially now that BAckstrom is on their roster... yes our prospects are unproven but so are every teams unproven....if you are talking bapout proving things before they reach the pro level then alot of ours have ALREADY PROVED things. Pyatt and Dawes, Montoya and Korpikoski have all had success at the WJC's and Montoya and Dawes have gone on to continue success in the minor pro's.

WHat do you mean by unproven?

Pyatt has alot of value IMO. A great 2 years, good rep. as a model athlete, a good international career etc etc...

Brendl was a bust granted but Lundmark and Blackburn were genuinely good players and yes. the future, but were then rushed and/ or burnt out (DB) due to our poor playing roster.
and Dubinsky is juts as good a prospect as a Micheal Quellet.

...and you forgot Bobby Sanguinetti and Sauer, they've both had excellent careers in junior and have given no indication that wont continue.
I don't want to kidnap thread, but that couldn't be further from truth. Lundmark was a bust because he didn't work hard enough to stay in league. I could go on further, but this is Broadie thresd. Blackburn hurt his shoulder in a training accident and was unable to play after that. I don't know where this mis-information is coming from, but it needs to stop. BTW I love Broadie Dupont.

nrf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 11:17 AM
  #11
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,344
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrf83 View Post
I don't want to kidnap thread, but that couldn't be further from truth. Lundmark was a bust because he didn't work hard enough to stay in league. I could go on further, but this is Broadie thresd. Blackburn hurt his shoulder in a training accident and was unable to play after that. I don't know where this mis-information is coming from, but it needs to stop. BTW I love Broadie Dupont.
To Lundmark's defense (ironically so), he also just wasn't able to elevate his skill level to the NHL, and had no other natural ability, so what good is he? That's why it's so important to be a complete player, but 75% of a prospect's value lies in level in skill, particularly offensive strength. That's not to say Zaborsky is a better prospect than Pyatt (because he's too lacking in legitimacy, and is ONLY superior in terms of offensive instinct).

BobMarleyNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 11:32 AM
  #12
Fireonk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Just out of curiosity, why would you think Korpikoski is more of a sure deal then Dubinsky? In my opinion they both look like they will be successful 3rd liners during their career but both could possibly be 2nd liners. Neither of them have proved that yet.

Fireonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 12:03 PM
  #13
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrf83 View Post
I don't want to kidnap thread, but that couldn't be further from truth. Lundmark was a bust because he didn't work hard enough to stay in league. I could go on further, but this is Broadie thresd. Blackburn hurt his shoulder in a training accident and was unable to play after that. I don't know where this mis-information is coming from, but it needs to stop. BTW I love Broadie Dupont.
I agree with that. Lundmark got the idea in his head somehow that everything was going to be handed to him. Brendl was just a case of poor character. I don't think we have to worry in this regard about most of our forward prospects including Dupont, Pyatt (who isn't soft from what I hear but one of the best conditioned players in the organization). Their upside is just not as high as Lundmark and Brendl's were. Still they should be good players. Dupont to me has a better chance of remaining with the Rangers over some of our more higher regarded forward prospects just because of the fact that he's a good player but also brings size and aggression to his game. He's the closest we have to a legit power forward--not including the disappointing Jessiman.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 12:06 PM
  #14
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
 
Jackson Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469 View Post
i think brodie is gonna be a big time fan favorite in a few years...his game reminds me alot of adam graves (minus the 50 goal season). as long as his skill translates to the pro level he's one of those heart & soul warriors that you need to win...
I'm with you NYR469 regarding him being a fan favorite because of heart and soul attitude. He's the kind of player a lot of wish we had more of, players that stick up for other guys and still have offensive abilities. I just hope he can be in the Gravey mold of a goal scorer rather than a fourth line player like Hollweg.

Jackson Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 12:34 PM
  #15
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
I agree with that. Lundmark got the idea in his head somehow that everything was going to be handed to him. Brendl was just a case of poor character. I don't think we have to worry in this regard about most of our forward prospects including Dupont, Pyatt (who isn't soft from what I hear but one of the best conditioned players in the organization). Their upside is just not as high as Lundmark and Brendl's were. Still they should be good players. Dupont to me has a better chance of remaining with the Rangers over some of our more higher regarded forward prospects just because of the fact that he's a good player but also brings size and aggression to his game. He's the closest we have to a legit power forward--not including the disappointing Jessiman.
Don't diss the huge specimen buddy, hes going to surprise a lot of people this year.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 12:40 PM
  #16
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Ranger View Post
I'm with you NYR469 regarding him being a fan favorite because of heart and soul attitude. He's the kind of player a lot of wish we had more of, players that stick up for other guys and still have offensive abilities. I just hope he can be in the Gravey mold of a goal scorer rather than a fourth line player like Hollweg.
well the reason i said graves minus the 50 goal season because really graves was a 20-25 goal guy throughout his career that got lucky enough to ride shutgun with messier and had 1 magical year when he got 52...but if you take away that one magical year, i think dupont is very capable of being a 20-25 goal guy

NYR469 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 01:00 PM
  #17
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
In any given year, at least 20-25 forwards will get a chance to play (12 start the season in the opener and another 8-13 play throughout the year when injuries hit or one one of the rookies/elderly falters).

That's more than enough chances for everyone over the course of 2-4 years. If you deserve a spot, you will be able to prove yourself.

If we have too many players, they can be packaged together, moved for a defenseman or traded for a short-term veteran at the deadline knowing that someone else is there so the loss won't harm as much (like Avery for Cliche).


Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
Brodie has future nhler written all over him. the only question is on what line he would play. unfortunately this organization has gotten to the point where it is so deep that even if we dont sign any future free agents and let all the old players go when their contracts expire, we will STILL have a hard time getting brodie into the lineup.

i mean, youve percievably got drury and gomez for sure. then one of prucha or dawes, possibly both. cherepanov, anisimov, dubinsky, korpedo, callahan, possibly avery since he is still very young and very important, and probably marcel hossa if he produces this year. thats not counting the guys like byers, moore, betts, hollweg, orr, pyatt etc.


its a good problem to have, but what its going to do is cause some of the lower prospects to be traded away in strengthening moves a-la marc andre cliche.

i just hope dupont stays, like i said, i like character guys, and i like guys that can play. he can do both.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 01:30 PM
  #18
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
Other than Staal and Monty, we have no true blue chippers. Maybe Cherry and Bourret, but they aren't true blue chippers in the sense that you can get a top 510 draft pick for them (yes, yes, Cherry was SUPPOSED to go #4, but he didn't, did he? Look at all the GM's that passed on him, so obviously THEY don't think he's a blue-chipper, and neither do all those later GMs who didn't trade for him when he was available at 10-15).

Dubinsky's upside is an ok 2 liner. Most likely third liner. Possibly won't even make it or will be a mediocre role player. But we should pencil him in as a third liner.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRJurgen88 View Post
i'd put our prospects up against the Caps any day especially now that BAckstrom is on their roster... yes our prospects are unproven but so are every teams unproven....if you are talking bapout proving things before they reach the pro level then alot of ours have ALREADY PROVED things. Pyatt and Dawes, Montoya and Korpikoski have all had success at the WJC's and Montoya and Dawes have gone on to continue success in the minor pro's.

WHat do you mean by unproven?

Pyatt has alot of value IMO. A great 2 years, good rep. as a model athlete, a good international career etc etc...

Brendl was a bust granted but Lundmark and Blackburn were genuinely good players and yes. the future, but were then rushed and/ or burnt out (DB) due to our poor playing roster.

and Dubinsky is juts as good a prospect as a Micheal Quellet.

...and you forgot Bobby Sanguinetti and Sauer, they've both had excellent careers in junior and have given no indication that wont continue.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 01:44 PM
  #19
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMarleyNYR View Post
Sanguinetti is the biggest question mark.
There's a problem with offensive dmen who can't dominate offensively at the Jr or minor league level: They tend to become #7 dmen. Look at Hutchinson.


Or Doug Lidster. Absolutely dominated in college. Came to the NHL and had a very average career. One very good year. A half dozen ok seasons as a 4 dman. And most he his career he a the 5-7 dman (including all his Ranger years).

Defensemen are always a risk. Offensive players are always a risk. Offensive defensemen are a HUGE risk. Unless an offensive dman can score 35+ points every year, he probably won't play regularly.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 01:56 PM
  #20
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469 View Post
well the reason i said graves minus the 50 goal season because really graves was a 20-25 goal guy throughout his career that got lucky enough to ride shutgun with messier and had 1 magical year when he got 52...but if you take away that one magical year, i think dupont is very capable of being a 20-25 goal guy
In addition to the 52 goal year, he had three 30+goal years. During the lockout year, he was on pace for 30 goals also, which makes it 5 years when he had 30-52 goals.

After 1999, he definitely slipped (wow, has it really been that long?).

But in the 7 years from 1992-92 to 1998-99, he had 5 years of 30-52 goals and 22+23 goals in the other two years.

That's 221 goals in 533 games, which comes out to 32.5 goals per year in his prime years of 24-31.

In 1991-92, he had 26 and in 1999-2000, he had 23. That's 270 goals in 690 games, which comes out to a little over 32.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 01:57 PM
  #21
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
Don't diss the huge specimen buddy, hes going to surprise a lot of people this year.

Well Inferno I'd love to eat crow on this one but....

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 02:38 PM
  #22
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
There's a problem with offensive dmen who can't dominate offensively at the Jr or minor league level: They tend to become #7 dmen. Look at Hutchinson.


Or Doug Lidster. Absolutely dominated in college. Came to the NHL and had a very average career. One very good year. A half dozen ok seasons as a 4 dman. And most he his career he a the 5-7 dman (including all his Ranger years).

Defensemen are always a risk. Offensive players are always a risk. Offensive defensemen are a HUGE risk. Unless an offensive dman can score 35+ points every year, he probably won't play regularly.
theres more to an offensive defenseman than scoring points. the breakout pass is one of the most important plays in hockey. a guy who can execute a proper breakout pass each and every time, will have a long career, even if he doesnt put up points (as long as he is at least marginal in his own zone)

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 02:39 PM
  #23
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,344
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
There's a problem with offensive dmen who can't dominate offensively at the Jr or minor league level: They tend to become #7 dmen. Look at Hutchinson.


Or Doug Lidster. Absolutely dominated in college. Came to the NHL and had a very average career. One very good year. A half dozen ok seasons as a 4 dman. And most he his career he a the 5-7 dman (including all his Ranger years).

Defensemen are always a risk. Offensive players are always a risk. Offensive defensemen are a HUGE risk. Unless an offensive dman can score 35+ points every year, he probably won't play regularly.
Bingo.

And as talented as Sanguinetti is, he's projected to be one-dimensional to that degree. A guy like him would need to rack up about 45 pts regularly to make up for his defensive limitations. See Ozolinsh.

BobMarleyNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 04:02 PM
  #24
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
There's a problem with offensive dmen who can't dominate offensively at the Jr or minor league level: They tend to become #7 dmen. Look at Hutchinson.


Or Doug Lidster. Absolutely dominated in college. Came to the NHL and had a very average career. One very good year. A half dozen ok seasons as a 4 dman. And most he his career he a the 5-7 dman (including all his Ranger years).

Defensemen are always a risk. Offensive players are always a risk. Offensive defensemen are a HUGE risk. Unless an offensive dman can score 35+ points every year, he probably won't play regularly.

I think you underrate Lidster's career quite a bit. He was a solid player for many years with the Canucks. He was 33-34 when he first showed up in New York and was
still a good player and helped a lot in the year we won the cup--literally came out of the stands after sitting some 30 games or more in a row--replaced Karpotsev towards the end of the Jersey series and didn't miss a beat. Was solid, competitive and opportunistic in the stretch run to the Cup. Not too many other players have I seen pull that off. Almost 900 regular season games--not too shabby.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2007, 04:18 PM
  #25
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
I was probably Seinfeld's .... I mean... Lidster's biggest fan then (check Seinfeld's and Lidster's pics, they look like brothers).

He was GREAT in the 1994 playoffs when he got a chance to play. I was at Game 5 in the Finals and he was the guy who tied the game 3-3 after NYR was down 0-3. We lost, but he was great.

But most of the year, he was a 7-8 dman, along with Norstrom. Karpovtsev and Wells were the last regular pairing.

Lidster was a solid player in his prime. Most years he was a 4-5 defenseman, but nothing special.

Players like Lidster are a dime a dozen. Whether or not Pasta becomes another Lidster, it won't make a difference between we can always sign or trade for a similar player without tremendous cost.

Pasta will have to score 35 points in his worst year and 45 points in his regular year in order to make a difference for this team.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
I think you underrate Lidster's career quite a bit. He was a solid player for many years with the Canucks. He was 33-34 when he first showed up in New York and was
still a good player and helped a lot in the year we won the cup--literally came out of the stands after sitting some 30 games or more in a row--replaced Karpotsev towards the end of the Jersey series and didn't miss a beat. Was solid, competitive and opportunistic in the stretch run to the Cup. Not too many other players have I seen pull that off. Almost 900 regular season games--not too shabby.

Beacon 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 07:40 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.