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

Mike Dunham trade re-visited

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-09-2004, 03:54 PM
  #1
crossxcheck
Registered User
 
crossxcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to crossxcheck Send a message via MSN to crossxcheck Send a message via Yahoo to crossxcheck
Mike Dunham trade re-visited

So if you guys had to do all over again would you have traded zidlicky, murray, and kloucek for mike dunham?

IMO we in Nashville definitely got the better deal out of this, but I am curious what you rangers fans think.

crossxcheck is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 03:57 PM
  #2
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossxcheck
So if you guys had to do all over again would you have traded zidlicky, murray, and kloucek for mike dunham?

IMO we in Nashville definitely got the better deal out of this, but I am curious what you rangers fans think.
Looking on how well Zidlicky has done, it makes me wanna puke even more.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 03:58 PM
  #3
BruinsGirl
Registered User
 
BruinsGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bruinsville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossxcheck
So if you guys had to do all over again would you have traded zidlicky, murray, and kloucek for mike dunham?

IMO we in Nashville definitely got the better deal out of this, but I am curious what you rangers fans think.
Do you really need to rub it in?

Why didn't you ask this question in the end of the last year when Dunham played stellar D?

BruinsGirl is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 04:12 PM
  #4
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
I don't think..

anybody thought that what the Rangers had given up to acquire Dunham was fair to the Rangers. Backup goalies are often traded for a song...a third rounder, a b-level prospect...not what the Rangers gave up. Having said that, I'm not too upset with Dunham's year+ with the Rangers. He stood on his head last year behind a crappy set of players and kept them in most every game down the stretch. He did everything possible for this team to make the playoffs last year.

This season, overall, he's played well. We all knew, except for Sather, that Dunham was a 50+ start guy, not 60+ start guy. Sather pushed it despite having a competent back-up that basically outplayed the man he was playing behind, and some of this is on him. He's not Brodeur, who can start 70 games, and we all knew that going into this. It's another case of Sather acquiring somebody and having certain expectations for which lower one were warranted. But we're used to that by now.

Fletch is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 04:36 PM
  #5
crossxcheck
Registered User
 
crossxcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to crossxcheck Send a message via MSN to crossxcheck Send a message via Yahoo to crossxcheck
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsGirl
Do you really need to rub it in?

Why didn't you ask this question in the end of the last year when Dunham played stellar D?
I'm not trying to rub it in at all. mike dunham just didn't work here. he's not a bad goalie.

Heck, right now murray is out indefinitely and kloucek is an injury prone wuss who we traded.

I love zidlicky, but playing on a PP line with timonen has helped his numbers for sure.

crossxcheck is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 05:09 PM
  #6
Leetchie2
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
what pisses me off is that Dunham was playing superb until Sather started him for two back to back games. Everyone in here thought it was a bad idea and after the second game Dunham had a strained groin. Ever since then, his play hasn't been as good. Ugh.

 
Old
02-09-2004, 05:15 PM
  #7
AGraveOne
Registered User
 
AGraveOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,138
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to AGraveOne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetchie2
what pisses me off is that Dunham was playing superb until Sather started him for two back to back games. Everyone in here thought it was a bad idea and after the second game Dunham had a strained groin. Ever since then, his play hasn't been as good. Ugh.
Interesting. I never knew that. When was that back-to-back? Crazy. On the Ranger board, they hate Dunham mostly, which i think is unfair, because the Ranger system has to give more own-zone turnovers than any team in the league...oh yeah, do they ever give up two-on-ones? yeah plenty.

I think Dunham is a decent goalie in this league.

AGraveOne is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 05:42 PM
  #8
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossxcheck
So if you guys had to do all over again would you have traded zidlicky, murray, and kloucek for mike dunham?

IMO we in Nashville definitely got the better deal out of this, but I am curious what you rangers fans think.
Most of us did not like the trade last year, so not much has changed since then.

True Blue is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 07:17 PM
  #9
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,870
vCash: 500
hmm didnt trading for dunham help blackburn? what i mean is blackburn started numerous games in a row and if anybody remembers was being "ruined" by sather. lets be careful before we give zidlicky his ticket to toronto and the hockey hall of fame

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 07:20 PM
  #10
RANGER#11
Registered User
 
RANGER#11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norfolk, New York
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetchie2
what pisses me off is that Dunham was playing superb until Sather started him for two back to back games. Everyone in here thought it was a bad idea and after the second game Dunham had a strained groin. Ever since then, his play hasn't been as good. Ugh.
I still believe that Jussi is more then ready to step up and start playing. Lets give him a chance.

RANGER#11 is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 09:19 PM
  #11
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
hmm didnt trading for dunham help blackburn? what i mean is blackburn started numerous games in a row and if anybody remembers was being "ruined" by sather. lets be careful before we give zidlicky his ticket to toronto and the hockey hall of fame
We didn't make the playoffs last year and we sure as hell aren't gonna make 'em this year. The reason Sather traded for Dunham was to get us into the playoffs last year and give us a goalie until Blackburn (or maybe Lundqvist) was ready and could challenge Dunham for the number 1 job.

Seems that Sather was wrong about Dunham, doesn't it?


As for Zidlicky and the Hall of Fame, the only one who's saying it is you. It does appear that he's a legitimate NHL defenseman, though.

klingsor is offline  
Old
02-09-2004, 10:32 PM
  #12
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,581
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
hmm didnt trading for dunham help blackburn? what i mean is blackburn started numerous games in a row and if anybody remembers was being "ruined" by sather. lets be careful before we give zidlicky his ticket to toronto and the hockey hall of fame
Nobody's saying that the Rangers didn't need to get a goalie. Many people here (not me) questioned whether Dunham was the right choice and further questioned whether or not Sather gave up too much to get him.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 07:49 AM
  #13
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by klingsor
As for Zidlicky and the Hall of Fame, the only one who's saying it is you. It does appear that he's a legitimate NHL defenseman, though.
At the very least, he is a clear upgrade over Poti, M&M, Dale, & Bouchard.

True Blue is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 08:00 AM
  #14
NewYorkStranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossxcheck
I'm not trying to rub it in at all. mike dunham just didn't work here. he's not a bad goalie.

Heck, right now murray is out indefinitely and kloucek is an injury prone wuss who we traded.

I love zidlicky, but playing on a PP line with timonen has helped his numbers for sure.
I would say you got the better of the deal up until this point. Marek is playing well for you guys so I dont have a problem with you makingthat observation. I DO have a problem with you calling Tomas a wuss, that is a very unfair assessment of him. Tomas has struggled with injury problems, that doesn't make him a wuss. If anything his recklessness and hard nosed style have contributed to his problems staying healthy in this league. Very unfair statement about a heart and soul, gritty young player.

NewYorkStranger is offline  
Old
02-10-2004, 08:45 AM
  #15
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Zidlicky would look nice...

on the Rangers PP, although as I once mentioned, a lot of his success on the PP is his ability to get that one-timer off from the left side. Unfortunately, in RangerLand, Leetch is on the left side and Zidlicky would be on the right. Who knows if he can be as successful over there. At even strength and on defense, I didn't think there was anything special to the kid. He's still only one year in the NHL, despite being 26 years old, but there's still an adjustment an perhaps he can become a better all-around defenseman.

Tomas a wuss? I dunno about that. I do believe Tomas often lacks the drive to be successful in this league. We got wowed by his big hits here and there, and were impressed with the bid man's ability to skate and handle the puck, but he wasn't that great positionally and he almost never cleared the front of the net. In essence, he chose highlight reel plays (the hit) as opposed to going all-out every shift...and I think that was a knock on him even in the AHL...

Fletch 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 11:58 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.