HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Free Agent Frenzy
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Free Agent Frenzy Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

NYR-Boston

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-14-2004, 01:36 PM
  #1
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
NYR-Boston

To Nyr: Boynton

To BOS: Lundmark, Poti and a 4th

Rangers get their needed defencmen, and Boston gets a PP QB, a good 2 way younging and a decent pick

rnyquist is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 01:57 PM
  #2
neelynugs
Registered User
 
neelynugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vote Quimby!
Posts: 29,971
vCash: 500
it doesn't really address our needs without hurting us at the same time. boynton is a guy we can't afford to move. although lundmark is a question mark b/c of the injury, it's not bad value-wise. but i don't see it happening. mcgillis for poti might've been something to consider for both teams, but with shaone morrisonn and jeff jillson picking up the slack, our need for a puck moving Dman isn't as desperate as before.

neelynugs is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 02:03 PM
  #3
Newfie Bruin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,056
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Newfie Bruin
Interesting trade!!! But like neelynugs said, our need for a rushing D is over..Because Shaone Morrisonn is in town!!

Newfie Bruin is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 02:17 PM
  #4
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Maybe he is, but Boston loves Poti, and Poti loves Boston. I wouldn't be shocked if this happened. Originally it was supposed to be Gill for Poti, but with the recent good play of both, niether is wanting to trade straight up

rnyquist is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 02:19 PM
  #5
nyr5186
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans
Country: Madagascar
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
I really would rather not trade Lundmark, but if the Rangers could get back a young defensive defenseman with the calibre of Boynton, I'd do it. Its not like trading youth for over-the-hill veterans, so I wouldnt really have a problem with it. Boynton is 24 and he's exactly what the Rangers have needed for years - a solid #2 stay-at-home defenseman and a partner for Leetch. Losing Poti is addition by subtraction for the Rangers, as his defensive shortcomings are especially accentuated by the Rangers lack of a coherent system. So basically the Rangers get Boynton for Lundmark and a mid-round pick. Done deal.

nyr5186 is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 04:40 PM
  #6
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr4life5186
I really would rather not trade Lundmark, but if the Rangers could get back a young defensive defenseman with the calibre of Boynton, I'd do it. Its not like trading youth for over-the-hill veterans, so I wouldnt really have a problem with it. Boynton is 24 and he's exactly what the Rangers have needed for years - a solid #2 stay-at-home defenseman and a partner for Leetch. Losing Poti is addition by subtraction for the Rangers, as his defensive shortcomings are especially accentuated by the Rangers lack of a coherent system. So basically the Rangers get Boynton for Lundmark and a mid-round pick. Done deal.
Don't like it a bit.. While making a deal for a young defenseman is a step in the right direction, it's still a case of the Rangers sending three young assets for one..

Poti is buried deep in my NYR doghouse, but he is still a decent talent and a younger one at that, so he has value.. Lundmark is not a star, and I doubt he'll ever be, but he's shown me enough on both ends of the ice to think he'll have a decent NHL career.. Then dealing yet another pick, mid round or not, is another asset squandered..

Boynton is good, no argument, but enough is enough with these deals from the Rangers perspective..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 04:53 PM
  #7
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Don't like it a bit.. While making a deal for a young defenseman is a step in the right direction, it's still a case of the Rangers sending three young assets for one..

Poti is buried deep in my NYR doghouse, but he is still a decent talent and a younger one at that, so he has value.. Lundmark is not a star, and I doubt he'll ever be, but he's shown me enough on both ends of the ice to think he'll have a decent NHL career.. Then dealing yet another pick, mid round or not, is another asset squandered..

Boynton is good, no argument, but enough is enough with these deals from the Rangers perspective..

I think you're really don't know how good Boynton is. He's 24 and could EASILY anchor our team. Poti is 27, and won't get any better really. If we can get a franchise player for a guy who doesn't know his own zone from the back of his hand and a kid who may never be more than a 3rd liner, well heck i'll do it. Our biggest problem is defence, so why not fix that problem.

rnyquist is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:12 PM
  #8
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
I think you're really don't know how good Boynton is. He's 24 and could EASILY anchor our team. Poti is 27, and won't get any better really. If we can get a franchise player for a guy who doesn't know his own zone from the back of his hand and a kid who may never be more than a 3rd liner, well heck i'll do it. Our biggest problem is defence, so why not fix that problem.
I'm well aware of how good he is, still doesn't change my point..

Biggest problem(s) with this years team is speed and defense, yes, but it's a syptom, not the cause..

The cause is dealing three for one's in deals like Zidlicky, Kloucek, R. Murray for Dunham.. Cross and Dvorak for Carter.. Even York for Poti..

You can pour dirt on any of the Rangers dealt individually, but as a group, and a group that could have been part of a core they had value.. All were deals that squandered assets for "that missing piece" whatever that means.. And it keeps the Rangers on the outside looking in every year..

Boyton would help, but he can't solve the organizational woes caused by always dealing a few guys because "they'll only be third liners" or "he's already 27"..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:18 PM
  #9
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
I'm well aware of how good he is, still doesn't change my point..

Biggest problem(s) with this years team is speed and defense, yes, but it's a syptom, not the cause..

The cause is dealing three for one's in deals like Zidlicky, Kloucek, R. Murray for Dunham.. Cross and Dvorak for Carter.. Even York for Poti..

You can pour dirt on any of the Rangers dealt individually, but as a group, and a group that could have been part of a core they had value.. All were deals that squandered assets for "that missing piece" whatever that means.. And it keeps the Rangers on the outside looking in every year..

Boyton would help, but he can't solve the organizational woes caused by always dealing a few guys because "they'll only be third liners" or "he's already 27"..

OK the Dunham deal, it had to be done, no question about it, Blackburn was dying, it was a must. Zidlicky wouldn't sign with the rangers because he wasn't promised a spot and Kloucek was a bust after his concussion.

As from Cross and Dvorak for Pisa and Carter, that shouldn't have been a gamble. In fact we should have ***** the trade, but no one expected Carter to be this big of a bust

and Poti for York- bad trade but Sather was hoping Poti would take over so he could deal Leetch, never happened.

But boynton is different, he's a need, we need a defensive defencemen, the defence we run is pittiful, when everyone is healthy. Running Purinton is a joke and Leetch with Poti makes me want to cry. Plus i'd rather have Boynton showing Tjutin the ropes over Leetch, who can't even remember his own zone half the time

rnyquist is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:25 PM
  #10
nyr5186
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans
Country: Madagascar
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Don't like it a bit.. While making a deal for a young defenseman is a step in the right direction, it's still a case of the Rangers sending three young assets for one..

Poti is buried deep in my NYR doghouse, but he is still a decent talent and a younger one at that, so he has value.. Lundmark is not a star, and I doubt he'll ever be, but he's shown me enough on both ends of the ice to think he'll have a decent NHL career.. Then dealing yet another pick, mid round or not, is another asset squandered..

Boynton is good, no argument, but enough is enough with these deals from the Rangers perspective..
My feelings on Poti are this...When the Rangers first got him, I was fully aware that he was a liability in his own zone. However, he was 25 at the time, and I figured he'd eventually come around and improve defensively, like Leetch and Gonchar have certainly done over time. Even up until this past summer I thought he still had the ability to get better in his own zone. But now, Im fully convinced that what we see from this guy now is what we'll see from him five years from now. He's immensely talented, but just wasnt made out to be a hockey player. He constantly makes mistakes in the defensive zone that any junior hockey player should know not to do instinctively (ex. using his stick instead of his body, chasing the puckcarrier on a two-on-one, pinching at the wrong times, leaving guys wide open in the slot, etc.). Getting rid of him would be a blessing in disguise, as his puckrushing abilities are easily replaceable by AHL fodder such as Bouchard, who isnt as much a defensive liability. I suppose if you put him with a stay-at-home defenseman, keep him off the PK, and use him on the point of the power play, he could be a good asset to a team, but not for the New York Rangers, who are bad enough defensively as is.

As for the whole three-for-one argument, I understand the point, and I'd usually agree with you, but not in this case. Boynton is not another Lindros, or Kovalev, or Carter, or even Poti. He fills a dying need that's been unfilled for a long time, for the short term and long term. Its very rare that you can pick up a 24 year old #2 defensive defenseman. If he was 30 years old, then I would not like this trade, but since he has the potential to be a cornerstone defenseman for a long time, you gotta give up something to get him. Even if Lundmark turns out to be the solid 2nd line forward most people projected him to be (and I still think he will when given a chance), he wouldnt be as valuable as Boynton. And the fact that Boynton has already proven himself, while Lundmark hasnt, theres another reason to make this deal. You dont just expect to pick these guys off trees.

nyr5186 is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:32 PM
  #11
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
exactly what nyr4life said. this kid isn't anybody or old, or a FA in a year, this kid is a cornerstone defencemen. Trust me, if we can get him without losing Jessimen, Dawes, Blackburn or Tyutin, do it,

rnyquist is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:35 PM
  #12
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
OK the Dunham deal, it had to be done, no question about it, Blackburn was dying, it was a must. Zidlicky wouldn't sign with the rangers because he wasn't promised a spot and Kloucek was a bust after his concussion.

As from Cross and Dvorak for Pisa and Carter, that shouldn't have been a gamble. In fact we should have ***** the trade, but no one expected Carter to be this big of a bust

and Poti for York- bad trade but Sather was hoping Poti would take over so he could deal Leetch, never happened.

But boynton is different, he's a need, we need a defensive defencemen, the defence we run is pittiful, when everyone is healthy. Running Purinton is a joke and Leetch with Poti makes me want to cry. Plus i'd rather have Boynton showing Tjutin the ropes over Leetch, who can't even remember his own zone half the time
-Dunham- Had to be done??? The most given up for a goalie (and by far the most for one with minimal playoff experience) in several years, and it was done to make a run at 8th place???? Blackburn was dying.. He was being played too much.. Who's fault was that??? Did Sather even ATTEMPT to see if Holmqvist or Labarbera were able to handle some time?? Nope..
I've got no problem with Dunham, he's done well, but there were other, less expensive asset wise, options out there.

Zidlicky- wanted a one way deal, he never had to be "promised" a spot.. A one way deal around 750k for a defenseman who did well in Europe is NOTHING compared to the money the Rangers throw away on other crap.. If he didn't look like much in preseason, he would have cleared waivers..

Kloucek a bust?? Wow.. Just wow.. Thanks for making the point that Ranger fans don't give players, especially defensive defensemen time to develop..

And Cross was the best partner Kapsaraitis had all year.. They fit PERFECTLY together, and were the Rangers best pair for many games.. Guee the Rangers had no room for guys who fit.. Dvorak was a defensive player, always was.. He was struggling with his offense, so he's dealt for another streaky offensive player, who makes more money and doesn't have near the same speed?? Think Dvorak's speed and PK has been replaced?? nope.. Where's Pisa?? Oh..

Sather couldn't deal Leetch at that time.. No trade clause and Leetch repeatedly said, when asked by the press, no way he'd waive it.. When the deal expired, he was a UFA.. There was no window to trade him when Poti came aboard.. And York was the heart of the team.. The only one who never took a night off.. Yeah, he had to go..


But Boyton is different..


Where have I heard that before.. (ahem, Lindros.. cough, Bure.. ahem, cough hack, kovalev..)


Here's something different, let's see the rangers hang on to a core, and develop their own Boynton.. I'm sure they can finish in 10 place with or without him.. I'd prefer hanging onto a few guys and go without..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:39 PM
  #13
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr4life5186
You dont just expect to pick these guys off trees.
No, I'd expect to pick them in the draft.. Doesn't cost three assets to do so either..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:46 PM
  #14
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Draft a Boynton? and what if that doesn't happen? What if Lundmark is a bust, Poti scores on his net more and the 3rd/4th rounder is nothing more than an ECHL player, yup i'd prefer a guy who's damn good and not even in his prime, established over a "maybe"

rnyquist is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:56 PM
  #15
nyr5186
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans
Country: Madagascar
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
But Boyton is different..

Where have I heard that before.. (ahem, Lindros.. cough, Bure.. ahem, cough hack, kovalev..)

Here's something different, let's see the rangers hang on to a core, and develop their own Boynton.. I'm sure they can finish in 10 place with or without him.. I'd prefer hanging onto a few guys and go without..
IMO, I think Boynton is young enough where you can build a core around him. Unlike the guys you mentioned, he isnt just a quick fix or somebody who can help the Rangers make a playoff run. He's the type of guy you can build your defense around for the next 10-12 years. I agree that team speed and quickness is a big problem with the Rangers, and certainly getting rid of Lundmark doesnt help that, but team defense is just as much a, if not a bigger, problem than that. Its been the Rangers' achilles heel for years. Just look at the standings. They've been in the lower third in goals against for how long? And sure, you can argue that a lack of system or inability to stick to the system has been one of the reasons they've been so bad defensively, but if you think replacing that waste of space Poti with Boynton on the top pair doesnt significantly improve our defense corps, I dont think you know just how good Boynton is or will be for the next 10 years.

nyr5186 is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 05:58 PM
  #16
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
Draft a Boynton? and what if that doesn't happen? What if Lundmark is a bust, Poti scores on his net more and the 3rd/4th rounder is nothing more than an ECHL player, yup i'd prefer a guy who's damn good and not even in his prime, established over a "maybe"
So we're playing what if??

What if Boyton tears his knee or shoulder out??

What if Boyton develops a nasty drug habit??

What if Boynton holds out??

But let's deal three more assets for him anyways.. He's exactly what they need.. To get to 9th place..

This team is going NOWHERE until they develop some semblence of a core.. Never going to happen if they keep dealing their only marketable assets all in the same deals.. Sad as it is, Poti and Lundmark do represent their most marketable assets..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 06:03 PM
  #17
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr4life5186
IMO, I think Boynton is young enough where you can build a core around him.
I'll bet if you asked B's fans two years ago, when Boyton was a talented but still developing blueline project, they'd have gladly taken Mike York for him..

Davisian is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 06:09 PM
  #18
neelynugs
Registered User
 
neelynugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vote Quimby!
Posts: 29,971
vCash: 500
this is all a moot point b/c boston isn't trading boynton

neelynugs is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 06:11 PM
  #19
nyr5186
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans
Country: Madagascar
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
No, I'd expect to pick them in the draft.. Doesn't cost three assets to do so either..
Im all for that. However, besides Tyutin, I dont see any prospects in the Ranger system who have a legitimate shot at becoming cornerstone defensemen, let alone top 4 defensemen.

And I dont think the Rangers are giving up three assets as I dont see Poti as being any type of asset to their success. He's a spare part, and somebody who has spurned Ranger fans' ire for almost two years now. Now is the time to trade him, while he at least has some value left, because all he's gonna be the rest of his career is another version of Ozolinsh.

As for trading Lundmark, its not like Im happy doing it. I'm not Glenjar. I understand the kid has alot of skills, alot of potential, and should be given a fair shot with this team. However, I believe Boynton fills a bigger void (defense) for the short and long term, and is already a proven commodity who will only get better.

nyr5186 is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 06:30 PM
  #20
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,592
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
Poti for York- bad trade but Sather was hoping Poti would take over so he could deal Leetch, never happened.
Please, oh please, explain this one. And how exactly do you know this?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
01-15-2004, 02:57 AM
  #21
allrevvedup25
Registered User
 
allrevvedup25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neelynugs
this is all a moot point b/c boston isn't trading boynton
I agree with you Neely, I am a Ranger fan and if Boynton is one of those cornerstone type of defensemen, why in god's name would Boston trade him for Poti, Lundmark and a mid-round pick.

As well, I agree with Davisian on stop trading the 3-1!!! Its time the Rangers start getting 3 players for 1. As well, I want to see Lundmark get his legitimate chance with the Rags. As much as I want to see Poti gone, it would take a prospect like Fedor to get Boynton back and no way I would do that deal

allrevvedup25 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 05:08 PM.

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.