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

So, are we better or worse?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-05-2008, 07:07 PM
  #201
NY Ranger86
Registered User
 
NY Ranger86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ryan = Cup
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
and who knows if were better, i think gomez and zherdev will be great together but who knows until the season starts

NY Ranger86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2008, 07:50 PM
  #202
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Big difference....

between Naslund and Kamensky - one was a leader on his team for years and the other was a support guy who all of the sudden was supposed to be a leader.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 09:28 AM
  #203
Todd Elik
Registered User
 
Todd Elik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 593
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Todd Elik
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post
I think we all need to understand that losing the core from last year, is actually not a bad thing. Jagr, while we love him for bringing our franchise back to respectability, had a very very off year, and let's face it, he didn't mesh well with either Gomez or Drury.
what has naslund had the past 2-3 years then?

Todd Elik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 09:30 AM
  #204
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Elik View Post
what has naslund had the past 2-3 years then?
he has had an inept offense around him..........along with 3rd line players eith him while playing his off wing

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 09:32 AM
  #205
AK
Registered User
 
AK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 15,538
vCash: 500
I think you guys are a lot better. I think Sather overpaid for Roszival and Redden a bit, but the addition of Zherdev and Naslund up front are sick. Rangers should be good.

AK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 09:48 AM
  #206
Todd Elik
Registered User
 
Todd Elik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 593
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Todd Elik
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
he has had an inept offense around him..........along with 3rd line players eith him while playing his off wing
I dont think so, I just think hes on the decline. He had a pretty good prime but he is not half the player Jagr is or was and he is slated to be Jagrs Replacement. I would not be surprised if you guys finished out of the playoffs. The Pens are better the flyers are better and the devils are better. You guys are not nearly as good as last year. I agree with that son of steinbrenner guy. You made a bunch of offseason moves and they all were not good. I like Zherdev but I think getting rid of tuytin was a mistake. And your salary situation next year looks to be screwed. I think Sather should get the boot. He messed up a pretty good rangers team. I dont know how you dont resign Avery last year, He desevered every penny he got. He took Martin Broudeur out of his game, it takes a special player to take a top 3 goalie of all time out of his game, In which Avery cleary did and in the playoffs on top of all else.
What brings me to this topic is my freind is a huge rangers fan and he thinks this team is head and shoulders better then the rangers of the past 3 years.


Last edited by Todd Elik: 07-06-2008 at 09:57 AM.
Todd Elik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 09:52 AM
  #207
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 14,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WWGRD View Post
I think you guys are a lot better. I think Sather overpaid for Roszival and Redden a bit, but the addition of Zherdev and Naslund up front are sick. Rangers should be good.
In a market where Campbell got $7.1 million for 8 years, and Streit got $4.1 million for 5 years, Redden and Rozsival are probably priced just about right.

jas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 10:15 AM
  #208
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Elik View Post
I dont think so, I just think hes on the decline. He had a pretty good prime but he is not half the player Jagr is or was and he is slated to be Jagrs Replacement. I would not be surprised if you guys finished out of the playoffs. The Pens are better the flyers are better and the devils are better. You guys are not nearly as good as last year. I agree with that son of steinbrenner guy. You made a bunch of offseason moves and they all were not good. I like Zherdev but I think getting rid of tuytin was a mistake. And your salary situation next year looks to be screwed. I think Sather should get the boot. He messed up a pretty good rangers team. I dont know how you dont resign Avery last year, He desevered every penny he got. He took Martin Broudeur out of his game, it takes a special player to take a top 3 goalie of all time out of his game, In which Avery cleary did and in the playoffs on top of all else.
What brings me to this topic is my freind is a huge rangers fan and he thinks this team is head and shoulders better then the rangers of the past 3 years.
1) naslund is not supposed to replace jagr.....the fact that zherdev, naslund+ the younger players getting more ice time like dawes should replace shanny, straka and jagr who would all have been a year older

2) avery wanted too much money for what he was on this team....he also was a sideshow in thre lockerroom either not talking to the press or giving the finger to the camera

i think this team WILL be better than the rangers of te past three years in a year as players get more experience bcause the scoring will be more spread out

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 10:27 AM
  #209
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 14,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
1) naslund is not supposed to replace jagr.....the fact that zherdev, naslund+ the younger players getting more ice time like dawes should replace shanny, straka and jagr who would all have been a year older

2) avery wanted too much money for what he was on this team....he also was a sideshow in thre lockerroom either not talking to the press or giving the finger to the camera

i think this team WILL be better than the rangers of te past three years in a year as players get more experience bcause the scoring will be more spread out

Thank you for taking the time to wade through that...it made my eyes and my head hurt.

jas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 10:31 AM
  #210
nexusrage21
Registered User
 
nexusrage21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 902
vCash: 500
The worst part is going to be when Rosival still looks to get the puck to Jagr on the powerplay rather than take the shot himself, because those cross-atlantic passes always get picked off.

nexusrage21 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 10:33 AM
  #211
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
Thank you for taking the time to wade through that...it made my eyes and my head hurt.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 10:34 AM
  #212
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nexusrage21 View Post
The worst part is going to be when Rosival still looks to get the puck to Jagr on the powerplay rather than take the shot himself, because those cross-atlantic passes always get picked off.


i laughed out loud at that

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2008, 11:44 PM
  #213
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
With the way the game is going, I'd say that's a pretty good top line actually. Scoring has slipped since 2005-06 and while it's not down to pre-lockout levels, if you can have two 25-30 goal scorers flanking a 70 point center, that put's you in pretty good company.
Edge, I think that's a pretty average 1st line, What are the odds (since you like playing the odds) that both Naslund and Zherdev score 25-30 goals? Also what are teh odds both players play every shift with Gomez? I'm sure you don't believe that depth chart is going to translate into what the lines will look like...right? Even if you are correct the Rangers still are missing important pieces to being a succesful team next season...Mainly they don't have a scorer for the 2nd line nor the cap space to add one...


Quote:
You can't just compare it to the A-Rod situation A-Rod was coming off an MVP season and people proposed replacing him with a platoon. Zherdev and Naslund provide the option of being able to move players around so the opposing team can't just go after one player.
I am comparing it to the Arod situation....Yankees fans used phrases like "balance throughout the lineup" when talking about how to replace his numbers...Guys like Crede and Tejada were thrown around as replacements..I don't think I ever saw anybody call for a platoon...Balance throughout the lineup seems like to catchphrase Rangers fans are using to describe the drastic changes that were made...

Quote:
As for chemistry, I found it funny how that is now the catchphrase of the summer but yet two years ago we had no idea how Nylander/Jagr/Straka would click of whether three of those guys would play better than their disappointing totals from the years prior.
I think the chemistry issues were solved when Sather added people Jagr knew two yeas ago...I think people were talking about the Czech entourage and how that had a lot to do with the Rangers success two years ago...Also Nylander Straka and Jagr all played together before on diffrent teams...I don't think anybody had the questions you asked above...I even scanned old threads to see...I couldn't find any...I know this isn't the only place for Rangers talk but it's a good sample of what the fans think...

I think chemistry was talked about last season when we brought Gomez and Drury in and let Nylander go..I started thread about it! I'm not sure that argument about two years ago really holds any water...(no offense)



Quote:
The Penguins have intergrated how many young talents on to their team in the past few years. The point is that we just do not know yet. But I come back to the original point that those who believe it can work are at least willing to admit that it may not while those who do not believe it can work seem far less willing to have any flexibility in that stance. And those people are a very vocal minority.
It also took the Penguins years to get back to where they were...I think that's a bad example as well, we have no Crosby and Malkin here to lead the offense....

I can't speak for anybody else but I have "flexibilty in my stance" (what is this little league? lol) I'd be more then happy to admit I was wrong...I also think everybody WANTS this to work, the main argument is will this work and even those who think it will have talked about the vast RISKS involved...

I'll say it again and again...I want to be wrong about this...I want to say in March and April when we are running away withe division "Jagr who" I just don't think that's going to happen...I'm also not a negative person with anything...calling me a pessimist is a little over the line...Do you remember how I started on this board? I see the positives in anything (on the board which is minor fraction of my life) and in reality...i'm all about the glass being half FULL!!


Quote:
And who would you sign? And do you know if they wanted to come here?
I wouldn't have signed Naslund...I'd have signed Vermette to an offer sheet or I would've made another trade at the expense of Anisimov or Sanguinetti (Depending on the player) to bring in a bonafide scoring winger...If Jagr was PLAN E then I would've made a play for Tanguay or Camillari at the draft..

As for would they want to come here? I asked the same question earlier in the thread because I don't think Free Agents with all things being equal wanted to sign here on July 1st...I think they saw a shell of team.....I think that's a big problem and it's a reason I'm so down on this offseason...it's another reason why i think this team is worse this year..

Quote:
Sometimes it's not just about having the money to sign a player, it's about having the opportunity.
I agree...

Quote:
And that's the million dollar question,but I don't see that situation being any differnt with Jagr here because despite the players he drew to him, the team still had trouble scoring outside the top line. And I think the fire line is improve over last year because it can recover easier if one isn't on his "A" game. the whole problem with the Jagr or bust mentality is that if he was neutralized, so was the offense. If he was tired or hurt, so was the offense. If he wasn't his best that night, so was the offense.
Wait a second here...you think the 2nd line can pick up the 1st line if they don't score? with what firepower?

The Jagr or bust mentality is one of the main reasons this team scored last year...you'd have an argument if Jagr was 3rd or 4th on the team in scoring but he was still leading the team in scoring...I think balance means we don't have enough scoring...We aren't talking about rolling 3 balanced scoring lines we are talking about having a 2nd line and two third lines next season...that isn't going to lead to more offense..IMO..again i could be wrong and ya know i wanna be...i know you see the risks involved (which makes you immune to any future criticism of your opinion here) but I think the risks outweigh the rewards with the current roster...

Quote:
As for the second line, we're still going to need another scorer. But the question being asked is "Are we better or worse" not "Are we finished and complete." Saying you think the team is better does not mean you think the team is a finished product. I think that's a very important distinction to make.
The Rangers don't have the cap space to aquire another scorer that would fit any real need. I don't think this team is finished or complete..I understand the question of the thread.......so basically your saying you think the team is better because you are counting on the rangers getting a scorer sometime in the future? um-ok...how does that make the team better RIGHT NOW and isn't that what the topic of the thread is?

Quote:
I do believe that the Rangers need to make a move for one more winger in the top 6, but I do believe we have some options as well. I think Dawes is certainly in that mix, and I don't think Dubinsky is out of it either. Drury is certainly right and Prucha is a wildcard. That in of itself isn't enough, but it's not chopped liver either.
I think Dawes can be a top 6 winger but with the way the team is right now it's more important for him to be a top 9 winger...he can play with any of the centers and if the 3rd line isn't scoring as much as the 2nd line (because we are going to have A "BALANCED" attack) we are in big trouble...Dawes and Dubinsky have to duplicate what they did last year...actually they are going to have to improve on it....i just hope we don't see any sophomore slumps next year..

I don't think Prucha is a wild card nor do i think he can be counted on..I think we have seen what Prucha is...It's not what we saw 3 years ago...ya know the league has tightend up alot since Prucha scored his 30 goals in 05-06...His game doesn't translate as well IMO...I also think with a team that's shaping up to be pretty small his spot will be given to another player...I think he's a part-timer at best...I really don't think he has much trade value..ut i'm wiling to admit i'm wrong..


Quote:
See therein lies the problem with the pessimist crowd. That line between being okay moving forward gets blurred into sounding like I was screaming from the top of a podium "Get him out, he's a bum! Get him out!"
I don't think you were screaming get him out of here but you were telling us for years the team would improve post Jagr..I also felt this way but i didn't think it would be this season nor do did i think it would be without a replacement for his production...


Quote:
How many times have I said "It's a risk?" Would you care to go back or should I? I'll say it again, "THIS MOVE HAS RISKS."
To be fair i don't think anybody is saying your word is god here...i think we all understand if this didn't work out it's not your doing anyway...i can say the same thing here..i mean i have said many times in this thread and others how i hope i'm wrong.....i want to be wrong...i think it goes without saying This move has risks...
Quote:
Having Naslund and Zherdev IS NOT A GIVEN that we will be successful. However, I LIKE THE ODDS.
I like the odds that Gomez production will go up but the offense overall is going to suffer...this isn't about Zherdev and Naslund replacing Jagr it's about where is the other scoring coming from...isn't it?
Quote:
Are we clear on that much now? Good.
i've never been unclear about what your points were i just don't agree with them...you can put the word risk in capital letters but i think both sides of our argument agrees that there is a risk involved...it's just one side doesn't see the risk outweighing the reward..i'm all about risk in life but now that i'm older i see no need for unwarranted risk..nor do i see a need for risk without a plan...that's what the rangers have done this offseason....that's my problem with it...

are we all clear about that now? good...

Quote:
I believe that the STYLE of this team had changed. I think we have more players who play more of a run and gun game than we do who play Jagr's relaxed and waiting approach. Now if Jagr were 26 and not 36, it's a little easier to say "Hey we're going to build our team around his style of play." But at 36, that really isn't a very good option. So you're faced with two choices:

A. You build around the younger guys who play more of the run and gun style of play.

or

B. You build around an aging superstar and hope he can hold on long enough for you to trade a lot of guys and find players to play with him.

The question isn't whether Jagr still has talent or whether or not he still brings strong assets to the rink. The question is about what direction the team is taking and what kind of players do we have.
Edge I really believe you can do both and with Dubinsky already here (who played well with Jagr...which is getting lost in all this) it was possible to do. The Rangers could've still made the Zherdev trade and had Jagr on the team....I also think a run and gun still would work better with a guy like Jagr. The Rangers blew this whole "Jagr thing" from all angles...





Quote:
So there was no chance that Jagr was going to have a down year? No chance that his drop in production was going to keep going in the SAME direction it has been for THREE YEARS NOW? No chance that, based upon the trend we've seen, that he was going to drop down to a 20 goal, 60 point player? None at all right?
I think anybody that wanted Jagr back acknoledges the "risks" involved but I'd take my chances and I liked the odds of it working...His drop in production was for two years now AND he went from 124 points to 98 in one of those years...I also think with a more experianced Dubinsky Jagrs production would've grown next year....

Even in your "worst" case scenario did we bring in a forward to replace even those 60 points we lost? I know your going to respond with we brought two in and two is better then one BUT we didn't just lose Jagr this offseason. Naslund and Zherdev have to replace Jagr, Shanny, Avery, and Straka's production on the top 2 lines...I don't like the odds of that..Do you? Isn't it alot to ask of 23 year old with loads of talent but with some question marks and an aging forward on the decline?

Quote:
You see, people on the other side of the coin can play the decline skills card too. And mathematically the whole losing half your production line is flawed, because you're not taking into account the production of the guys you get back.
I'm taking in the production of the guys we get back...I just don't think they can replace ALL that's been lost...This isn't just about Jagr and Avery we have lost 2 other top line forwards as well....Mathematically 2 doesn't replace 4...

Do we have guys in the system that are ready to step up? You went over the list before and I think Dawes is the only immediate sure fire answer....Are we faced with another Tim Sweeney with Wayne Gretzky scenario next season? The fact remains this team is up against the cap and is still incomplete....that's not being pessimistic that's being realistic....

Quote:
Oh but that's right we are. The only difference is that somehow Jagr stood no chance of dropping off but Naslund and Zherdev are givens.
I don't think that at all...I think Zherdev and Naslund will have two 50 to 60 point years a piece...i just don't think that's enough to replace everything that's been lost...I also think Jagr had a better chance of having a bounce back year this year...
Quote:
And yes Jagr made us successful, so exactly how long are we going to stick with that approach and nothing but. So when do we move on? When he's 37? When he's 38? Later, sooner?
I think it could've went year to year for the next two years if Sather played it right...I think the Rangers could've done that if they played this whole situation right...I also think if the plan was not to bring Jagr back they had no idea how to react to it....

Quote:
I'll admit, Jagr was one of the main reasons we returned to a higher level of play. I have no problem saying that at all, but I also have to look at who we have on our team, what direction we're going and the future. I don't think having Jagr ensures that everything is peachy keen.
I don't think having Jagr back made every other problem go away but it helps the whole team having him...It ensures you know who the other teams top defenseman are going againt freeing up your other players to score...i think having Jagr on the team means your team is going to the playoffs...
Quote:
Are their risks, you bet. But I think this is the time for the Rangers to move in a different direction.
i think next year was the time but in the end this is what it is...


Quote:
You know what, it's a no win situation. If they try to ride him into the playoffs, people will be unhappy when he walks.

If you trade him before him, people will complain.

Personally, I think the stick waving incident with Brodeur is what actually sealed his fate. Now it doesn't matter what you or I think on the matter per say, but looking back it was pretty obvious that was the straw that broke the camels back with his teammates.

So i'm not entirely sure that Sather didn't want him back at all. I think Sather figured he'd start with the low offer and maybe get him for two years at around the $3-million mark. In Avery's case, though I'm REALLY sad to see him go, I can't say that I wouldn't have taken a wait and see approach myself.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here...


Quote:
If he bombs, the contract will be easy enough to move. And if we want to talk about decline skills, Jagr's pointed to about 20 goals and 60 points if his current trend continued. Just though that should be mentioned as well.
If your using this decline rate for Jagr what does Naslunds production equal next year?

Quote:
So you think Jagr's style of play still fit the guys we have on our roster? You think Jagr was still the guy to build around going forward?
Yes I think the Rangers have guys that compliment Jagr on the roster. I think Dubinsky would've worked even better this season then last season with Jagr..

I don't think this was a case for building around Jagr...I think you could've had the best of both worlds if you wanted too.. I think Jagrs line could've played a diffrent style then the rest of the team.....

Do the Rangers have a forward to build around now?

Quote:
You're right. Their first choice was to get Hossa. But even if they got Hossa, Jagr wasn't coming back.
If the Rangers got Hossa they replaced Jagrs production...i didn't want Hossa over Jagr but I wouldn't have said this team is going to be worse next season....

Quote:
It doesn't matter if it was Plan A or Plan Z that went through, it's pretty obvious that Jagr was not a part of that plan no matter what. The Rangers did have a backup, and a backup to their backup and a backup to that. Jagr was not a part of those plans.
Looking back it was pretty obvious which is a problem...The team had no leverage talking to other teams about players AND they had no leverage talking agents about free agents.....That's part of this whole fiasco...


Quote:
The Rangers made a heavy play for Hossa, but he went with Detroit. In their eyes, Jagr was not Plan B by default.
Jagr should've been Plan B...I think he should've been Plan A but i'm the guy behind the keyboard...

Quote:
I think talks had progressed enough to know that Jagr wasn't interested in a seven year deal and wanted to paid like "the man". He pretty much said so himself in the papers.

So no matter how you cut it, Jagr just wasn't coming back.
He should've been paid like the "man" I mean wasn't he the "man" on this team? He led the team in scoring and led the team in the playoffs..I don't think Jagr said anything out of line btw...I think what he said was the truth and he also in the same article talked about how important it was to build around Gomez and Drury....

The Rangers should've done all the negoitating with Jagr before July 1st and had a plan to move forward without him...what we have is a mish-mash roster with a lot IF's and Maybes....I know you know the "risks" but it doesn't make me wrong to point them out or even worry about them...

We can talk about how he wasn't in the plans but they did offer him a contract.....what if Jagr accepted?





Quote:
No it really doesnt' feel that way and I personally don't think he would've come back.

Honest answer.
I disagree...




Quote:
No I have a problem with trying to run an offense through a guy that the team isn't built. I can make a manual transmission car go by having it in the wrong gear, but that doesn't mean it's my best option. Jagr still has his talent but this team just is not built for him and his style anymore.

I can stick my head up a butchers...DAMMIT!...

I think Jagr could've been the main cog of a multi-planned attack...
Quote:
I also don't think that his 70-point production is a given or that he is unlimited shelf life. At this point, talent or not, building around a 36-year old is a tough task.
I don't think bringing Jagr back means you are just building around him...

Quote:
And yes I am expected 70 points from Gomez, because I think he can play closer to his game with some different linemates.
i hope your right...

Quote:
Jagr's style of play was a double edged sword for this team. He certainly created room for his linemates, but he didn't have anyone who was a natural fit with him and so he created room for guys to play a style they weren't strongest at.
Ok so Dubinsky didn't play well with Jagr? Do you think Dubinskys production is going to rise next season?

Essentially I see two potential outcomes:

Quote:
1. You sign Jagr and he creates room, but you have guys who doesn't necessarily fit that style of play.

2. You let Jagr go and you roll the dice with guys who are not as individually talented as Jagr but who may fit the style of play of the guys you already have.

The belief is that by having guys who plays styles that would appear to compliment each other, you're making up for the production you lost by letting Jagr go.

And again, it is not without its risks. But most people are willing to take their chances.
Dubinsky fit Jagrs style of play and produced with him...I don't think the style of play Jagrs line played effected the style of Gomez or Drury..I think those are convenient excuses for why Gomez and Drury didn't produce at times last season...What's going to change with there style of play with Jagr missing?


Quote:
That would of course be relevant if Jagr was signing with us $4.5 million.
Quote:
i'm dismissing nothing.

I look at the style of play this team was built for and I don't think Jagr is the best fit at the point.

I also think that finding guys who can play together gives me better odds than having a more talented player who struggles to play with what I have.
Have we found the guys that compliment Drury and Gomez? This team still looks incomplete to me..


Quote:
SOS, who in the world is guranteeing anything? I mean seriously, how many times can I say "it is a risk". I'm about two minutes away from making it my signiture.

Saying, "I believe this can work" or "I like my odds" is not a gurantee in any way shape or form. It's like you want me to promise you this will work and I cannot do that. I can tell you I think it will work, I can tell you I feel pretty good about it. But I have no bed time story to tuck you in with.
I don't need you to tell me everything is going to be ok....I also don't need you to justify each answer with "this is a risk" i understand all that...i also don't think this will work and i'm sure YOU aren't going to change my mind about that...
Quote:
And yes Naslund isn't the man, nor is he expected to be. In fact THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE POINT. The Rangers are trying to go with a system where they get guys who play well with each other and are more than the sum of their parts. No one, and I mean no, expects Zherdev or Naslund to be individually better than Jagr.
I know nobody expects Zherdev or Naslund to replace Jagr..they both HAVE too..i get it...but Zherdev and Naslund have to replace alot more then Jagr...but that's ok because we keep throwing the word "risk" around so if it doesn't work your covered...

Quote:
What they expect is to give us two options of guys who can score and be moved around if needed.
Moved around? So you don't expect Naslund and Zherdev to play with Gomez? Isn't the whole crux of your argument that a line with Naslund-Gomez-Zherdev is enough to replace Jagrs loss? Again, How much production can we REALLY count on from these guys?

Quote:
We're talking about Naslund and Zherdev as if everything is a projection and that they accomplished nothing last season.
They didn't accomplish ANYTHING as Rangers last season. We are talking about two forwards that didn't play on playoff teams. We are talking about a forward on the decline (which seems to only matter if your wear #68) and another forward one year removed from being considered a bust...A kid with definate question marks....but i know the answer is this is a risk..which btw isn't EVERYTHING? doesn't it go without saying these a risky moves? do you really think you need to justify your posts by saying it's a risk?

Quote:
I notice you left the second player in my sentence completely out of your response as well.

I talked about bringing two players. Not making a one-to-one comparison.
Fair enough but these two players have to replace 4 players...how is that going to happen?

Quote:
Different players, different approach. Different overall strategy.

You keep going back to this like Naslund is expected to play like Jagr, do Jagr things and that the Rangers wanted to go with that style of play.
If this GREAT top line the Rangers have constructed doesn't work out than what? that's one of my main points in all this...i don't keep acting like Naslund has to replace Jagr...I'm dumb but I'm not that dumb...I see this for what it is but that doesn't mean i have to like it...i
Quote:
Three years ago we brought in Straka and Nylander because we felt they fit a style of play that fit the team's. Three years later, we are trying to bring in players who fit the style of play our team is built for.
Three years ago the Rangers seemed better prepared to build a team out of the lockout...Now it seems like we are hoping that things will work out...the fact is this upcoming team has more question marks than the 05-06 squad....that's progress?

also earlier in the thread you said nobody would have any clue how nylander, straka, and jagr would play with each other..now you acknoledge that they were brought in because they fit the style of play the team wanted....interesting...

Quote:
We're not trying to replace Jagr with another 25 goal, 70 point player.

We're trying to find guys who's style could mesh with each other. Rather than have one guy who scores 25 goals and 50 assists, we are trying to build a line that has two wingers who score 50-60 goals and add 50-60 assists. We're also trying to find guys who are fast, will keep the other team backing up and who, hopefully, will compliment each other's style.
The Rangers are trying to build a team filled with Ifs, and Maybes...5 years post rebuild that's a sad state of affairs...



Quote:
SOS, who is poo pooing Jagr's departure? I mean there are only so many times someone can the word Risk. But that also shouldn't be the first word out of everyone's mouth at the begining of every sentence either.

And I don't think this makes them Cup favorites either. I don't think this is a finished product. But I don't think having Jagr here instead changes that. As I've said before, and probably close to 100 times already, I like my odds. THERE ARE RISKS. But I like my odds of being a better overall team.

And question marks are a part of the game.

Jagr was a question mark when he got here.

Nylander was a guy coming off serious injury and declining skills.

Straka was coming off declining stats.

Rozy was some project defenseman cast off by Pitts.

Hank was a rookie swedish goaltender who's timetable was the great unknown.

There's also been risk man. It's funny who hindsight erases those risks, but these conversations are not all that different when what we had three years ago.

We just came to expect certain things as a given and in the process forgot that that wasn't always the case.
Three years ago the expecations for this team were a lot less...funny how that's forgotten but as you say hindsight erases all that.....

It goes without saying this is a RISK...It makes for an easy out though if this thing blows up...

As it goes without saying that I hope i'm wrong about all this...I swear if I am I'll donate $100.00 to your favorite charity...that's how strongly i feel about this....

I don't see how you can think this is going to be a better overall team...i just don't see it...




Quote:
Sorry I just don't see it that way. Not with guys like Staal, Girardi, Dawes, Prucha, Fritsche, Zherdev, Lundqvist, Rozy, Gomez and others all under the age of 30 and guys like Korpikoski, Anisimov, Sanguinetti, etc. all challanging for spots or a future that includes the possibilities of Cherepanov, Del Zotto and others.

As for replacing production. I love Shanahan, but he was no longer a second line winger regardless of what his final numbers were.

Avery I'll miss, but the contract he got from Dallas is somewhere I wouldn't have gone and I'm not totally convinced that he hadn't worn out his welcome in NY with the stick waiving incident as the final straw.

And we'll just agree to disagree on some of the roster moves. I don't think I can honestly address that any other way than the small book i've now written in response to about 7 or 8 people.
Edge I love these debates and it's always fun...I don't think we are going to agree on the direction of the team but I see some of your points.....

Hear is to great summer leading into camp!!

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 07:51 AM
  #214
Cake or Death
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Are the Rangers better or worse? It's a very loaded question, and I always tend to see these things through my Rangers' tinted goggles, but I'll try to be as honest as I can.

Overall, regardless of the roster, and I seem to be in serious minority on this amongst Rangers' fans, but I personally have some issues with Renney and the coaching staff. How in hell does anyone give Jagr the C? The guy was floating 3/4 of the season and this was the guy setting the example? When he finally showed up, it almost felt like too little, too late. How do the coaches juggle the lines so badly for half the season, and still never really found the right combos? How does a team with Drury, Jagr, Gomez, Straka and Shanahan struggle all season on the PP and finish 22nd in the league at it? If x-y-and-z guy don't want to shoot on the PP, friggin bench 'em - there are plenty of guys on the bench who will. And for me, the coaching really came to a head in the playoffs.

I've been playing organized hockey and watching it for over three decades. I look at the Rangers roster and the Pens roster and cannot believe that the Rangers not just lost that series, but that they got their ***** kicked. The Rangers were better in goal, had better D, and while Pitt had better star forwards, the Rangers were much deeper up front. If we lost it in 7, that's one thing. But we got tooled. Therrien's team entered the series more prepared, they were more poised, they had a game plan, he made the right in-game adjustments when needed, etc etc. The Rangers, who I will die believing were the stronger team, looked ill-prepared and, instead of having any notable game plan, always looked like they were reacting to what the Penguins were doing.

As far as this year's team goes, I honestly know it's a better team. The loss of Jagr is a loss of a tremendously skilled player, a player who could be brutally dominant when he felt like it. But he was not without attributes that detract from a team. He is hard to deal with, can make a coach's life vastly more difficult than it needs to be, can disrupt the team concept in numerous ways if things aren't centering around him enough or the way he wants them. You want to see the exact opposite of Jagr, a real team player, and a real captain? Joe Sakic. Period. 2006-07 Sakic scores 100 points. Salary: 5.75 million. Each off-season, Sakic takes a low salary to stay with the team, one year contract only, based on his performance and what he feels he can really contribute. Jagr ... not so much.

Now, I have knocked Jagr and Renney around a bit, and there's a reason. I think both guys have great things to offer, but I think they're a lousy mix. Renney is relatively new and Jagr is a difficult to deal with guy who has achieved a ton and is fairly set in his ways. With Jagr leaving, Jaromir Jagr's team finally became Tom Renney's team, and the team's team. I think Renney's got a good hockey mind and a good feel for the game, I think this is the first season he'll truly be able to flex it.

Are the Rangers better or worse? They're on the same page for the first time in 10 years, they have skill, and they're young. They're better, simply because for the first time in a while, it's finally an actual hockey team. They're not the most talented team in the league, but if you showed most of us this squad five or six years back, and we had guys excited to come here and felt this united front, most of us would have pissed our pants in joy.

The players? We are paying this guy too much, this guy is paid about right, and this guy's a steal. Every team in the league has that make up, so I avoided those issues. But when you listen to the Naslund interview on the Rangers' site, this guy is genuinely brutally excited to be coming here. Mara was singing the same tune. I for one really like it because the team has the right atmosphere to it. And it finally feels like a team.

Jagr was a great player and was the face of the team; now the TEAM is the face of the team. I think the coming years are going to be a lot of fun and I am looking forward to it.

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 08:26 AM
  #215
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 11,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremeHockeyFan View Post
Are the Rangers better or worse? It's a very loaded question, and I always tend to see these things through my Rangers' tinted goggles, but I'll try to be as honest as I can.

Overall, regardless of the roster, and I seem to be in serious minority on this amongst Rangers' fans, but I personally have some issues with Renney and the coaching staff. How in hell does anyone give Jagr the C? The guy was floating 3/4 of the season and this was the guy setting the example? When he finally showed up, it almost felt like too little, too late. How do the coaches juggle the lines so badly for half the season, and still never really found the right combos? How does a team with Drury, Jagr, Gomez, Straka and Shanahan struggle all season on the PP and finish 22nd in the league at it? If x-y-and-z guy don't want to shoot on the PP, friggin bench 'em - there are plenty of guys on the bench who will. And for me, the coaching really came to a head in the playoffs.

I've been playing organized hockey and watching it for over three decades. I look at the Rangers roster and the Pens roster and cannot believe that the Rangers not just lost that series, but that they got their ***** kicked. The Rangers were better in goal, had better D, and while Pitt had better star forwards, the Rangers were much deeper up front. If we lost it in 7, that's one thing. But we got tooled. Therrien's team entered the series more prepared, they were more poised, they had a game plan, he made the right in-game adjustments when needed, etc etc. The Rangers, who I will die believing were the stronger team, looked ill-prepared and, instead of having any notable game plan, always looked like they were reacting to what the Penguins were doing.

As far as this year's team goes, I honestly know it's a better team. The loss of Jagr is a loss of a tremendously skilled player, a player who could be brutally dominant when he felt like it. But he was not without attributes that detract from a team. He is hard to deal with, can make a coach's life vastly more difficult than it needs to be, can disrupt the team concept in numerous ways if things aren't centering around him enough or the way he wants them. You want to see the exact opposite of Jagr, a real team player, and a real captain? Joe Sakic. Period. 2006-07 Sakic scores 100 points. Salary: 5.75 million. Each off-season, Sakic takes a low salary to stay with the team, one year contract only, based on his performance and what he feels he can really contribute. Jagr ... not so much.

Now, I have knocked Jagr and Renney around a bit, and there's a reason. I think both guys have great things to offer, but I think they're a lousy mix. Renney is relatively new and Jagr is a difficult to deal with guy who has achieved a ton and is fairly set in his ways. With Jagr leaving, Jaromir Jagr's team finally became Tom Renney's team, and the team's team. I think Renney's got a good hockey mind and a good feel for the game, I think this is the first season he'll truly be able to flex it.

Are the Rangers better or worse? They're on the same page for the first time in 10 years, they have skill, and they're young. They're better, simply because for the first time in a while, it's finally an actual hockey team. They're not the most talented team in the league, but if you showed most of us this squad five or six years back, and we had guys excited to come here and felt this united front, most of us would have pissed our pants in joy.

The players? We are paying this guy too much, this guy is paid about right, and this guy's a steal. Every team in the league has that make up, so I avoided those issues. But when you listen to the Naslund interview on the Rangers' site, this guy is genuinely brutally excited to be coming here. Mara was singing the same tune. I for one really like it because the team has the right atmosphere to it. And it finally feels like a team.

Jagr was a great player and was the face of the team; now the TEAM is the face of the team. I think the coming years are going to be a lot of fun and I am looking forward to it.
Good post.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 08:38 AM
  #216
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremeHockeyFan View Post
Are the Rangers better or worse? It's a very loaded question, and I always tend to see these things through my Rangers' tinted goggles, but I'll try to be as honest as I can.

Overall, regardless of the roster, and I seem to be in serious minority on this amongst Rangers' fans, but I personally have some issues with Renney and the coaching staff. How in hell does anyone give Jagr the C? The guy was floating 3/4 of the season and this was the guy setting the example? When he finally showed up, it almost felt like too little, too late. How do the coaches juggle the lines so badly for half the season, and still never really found the right combos? How does a team with Drury, Jagr, Gomez, Straka and Shanahan struggle all season on the PP and finish 22nd in the league at it? If x-y-and-z guy don't want to shoot on the PP, friggin bench 'em - there are plenty of guys on the bench who will. And for me, the coaching really came to a head in the playoffs.

I've been playing organized hockey and watching it for over three decades. I look at the Rangers roster and the Pens roster and cannot believe that the Rangers not just lost that series, but that they got their ***** kicked. The Rangers were better in goal, had better D, and while Pitt had better star forwards, the Rangers were much deeper up front. If we lost it in 7, that's one thing. But we got tooled. Therrien's team entered the series more prepared, they were more poised, they had a game plan, he made the right in-game adjustments when needed, etc etc. The Rangers, who I will die believing were the stronger team, looked ill-prepared and, instead of having any notable game plan, always looked like they were reacting to what the Penguins were doing.

As far as this year's team goes, I honestly know it's a better team. The loss of Jagr is a loss of a tremendously skilled player, a player who could be brutally dominant when he felt like it. But he was not without attributes that detract from a team. He is hard to deal with, can make a coach's life vastly more difficult than it needs to be, can disrupt the team concept in numerous ways if things aren't centering around him enough or the way he wants them. You want to see the exact opposite of Jagr, a real team player, and a real captain? Joe Sakic. Period. 2006-07 Sakic scores 100 points. Salary: 5.75 million. Each off-season, Sakic takes a low salary to stay with the team, one year contract only, based on his performance and what he feels he can really contribute. Jagr ... not so much.

Now, I have knocked Jagr and Renney around a bit, and there's a reason. I think both guys have great things to offer, but I think they're a lousy mix. Renney is relatively new and Jagr is a difficult to deal with guy who has achieved a ton and is fairly set in his ways. With Jagr leaving, Jaromir Jagr's team finally became Tom Renney's team, and the team's team. I think Renney's got a good hockey mind and a good feel for the game, I think this is the first season he'll truly be able to flex it.

Are the Rangers better or worse? They're on the same page for the first time in 10 years, they have skill, and they're young. They're better, simply because for the first time in a while, it's finally an actual hockey team. They're not the most talented team in the league, but if you showed most of us this squad five or six years back, and we had guys excited to come here and felt this united front, most of us would have pissed our pants in joy.

The players? We are paying this guy too much, this guy is paid about right, and this guy's a steal. Every team in the league has that make up, so I avoided those issues. But when you listen to the Naslund interview on the Rangers' site, this guy is genuinely brutally excited to be coming here. Mara was singing the same tune. I for one really like it because the team has the right atmosphere to it. And it finally feels like a team.

Jagr was a great player and was the face of the team; now the TEAM is the face of the team. I think the coming years are going to be a lot of fun and I am looking forward to it.
Bad post.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 08:41 AM
  #217
FutureGM97
Registered User
 
FutureGM97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Connecticut, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FutureGM97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremeHockeyFan View Post
Are the Rangers better or worse? It's a very loaded question, and I always tend to see these things through my Rangers' tinted goggles, but I'll try to be as honest as I can.

Overall, regardless of the roster, and I seem to be in serious minority on this amongst Rangers' fans, but I personally have some issues with Renney and the coaching staff. How in hell does anyone give Jagr the C? The guy was floating 3/4 of the season and this was the guy setting the example? When he finally showed up, it almost felt like too little, too late. How do the coaches juggle the lines so badly for half the season, and still never really found the right combos? How does a team with Drury, Jagr, Gomez, Straka and Shanahan struggle all season on the PP and finish 22nd in the league at it? If x-y-and-z guy don't want to shoot on the PP, friggin bench 'em - there are plenty of guys on the bench who will. And for me, the coaching really came to a head in the playoffs.

I've been playing organized hockey and watching it for over three decades. I look at the Rangers roster and the Pens roster and cannot believe that the Rangers not just lost that series, but that they got their ***** kicked. The Rangers were better in goal, had better D, and while Pitt had better star forwards, the Rangers were much deeper up front. If we lost it in 7, that's one thing. But we got tooled. Therrien's team entered the series more prepared, they were more poised, they had a game plan, he made the right in-game adjustments when needed, etc etc. The Rangers, who I will die believing were the stronger team, looked ill-prepared and, instead of having any notable game plan, always looked like they were reacting to what the Penguins were doing.

As far as this year's team goes, I honestly know it's a better team. The loss of Jagr is a loss of a tremendously skilled player, a player who could be brutally dominant when he felt like it. But he was not without attributes that detract from a team. He is hard to deal with, can make a coach's life vastly more difficult than it needs to be, can disrupt the team concept in numerous ways if things aren't centering around him enough or the way he wants them. You want to see the exact opposite of Jagr, a real team player, and a real captain? Joe Sakic. Period. 2006-07 Sakic scores 100 points. Salary: 5.75 million. Each off-season, Sakic takes a low salary to stay with the team, one year contract only, based on his performance and what he feels he can really contribute. Jagr ... not so much.

Now, I have knocked Jagr and Renney around a bit, and there's a reason. I think both guys have great things to offer, but I think they're a lousy mix. Renney is relatively new and Jagr is a difficult to deal with guy who has achieved a ton and is fairly set in his ways. With Jagr leaving, Jaromir Jagr's team finally became Tom Renney's team, and the team's team. I think Renney's got a good hockey mind and a good feel for the game, I think this is the first season he'll truly be able to flex it.

Are the Rangers better or worse? They're on the same page for the first time in 10 years, they have skill, and they're young. They're better, simply because for the first time in a while, it's finally an actual hockey team. They're not the most talented team in the league, but if you showed most of us this squad five or six years back, and we had guys excited to come here and felt this united front, most of us would have pissed our pants in joy.

The players? We are paying this guy too much, this guy is paid about right, and this guy's a steal. Every team in the league has that make up, so I avoided those issues. But when you listen to the Naslund interview on the Rangers' site, this guy is genuinely brutally excited to be coming here. Mara was singing the same tune. I for one really like it because the team has the right atmosphere to it. And it finally feels like a team.

Jagr was a great player and was the face of the team; now the TEAM is the face of the team. I think the coming years are going to be a lot of fun and I am looking forward to it.
AMEN!

FutureGM97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 09:23 AM
  #218
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 17,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremeHockeyFan View Post
Are the Rangers better or worse? It's a very loaded question, and I always tend to see these things through my Rangers' tinted goggles, but I'll try to be as honest as I can.

Overall, regardless of the roster, and I seem to be in serious minority on this amongst Rangers' fans, but I personally have some issues with Renney ......
I didn't want to quote the whole thing, but that's an excellent post. Well done.

I want to touch on something else that has been coming up, and that's the idea of 'replacing' players. I think it's extremely unfair to assume Naslund and Zherdev are going to replace the production of Jagr, Straka, Avery and Shanny. Not because I think they lack the skill to do it, but because I think the idea that relying on two forwards to replace the production of 4 guys is just flat out ludicrous and is a desperate attempt to validate someones reasoning regarding Jagr being an integral part of the team. (phew.)

I just don't understand why people assume that two guys are now responsible for carrying the offensive load, and the remaining top-six forwards aren't going to participate. Who's to say Dawes isn't capable of replacing Straka's production? Why is 25 goals from Jagr better than 26 goals from Zherdev? Why is Shanny with 44 points more valuable to the team than Naslund with 55?

Another thing that bothers me, sort of on the same note as the production, is the endless flow of excuses for Jagr. Jagr's severe decline in production is 'justified' because of his linemates, or people weren't finishing their opportunities, or whatever. But Naslund doesn't get the same treatment? The fact that he played on the second line with lousy teammates, or played with the Sedins and was out of position, is irrelevant? He's just a player on the decline, but Jagr just didn't get the resources he needed to succeed? I don't get it.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 09:52 AM
  #219
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Jeez.

Longest post ever there.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 10:04 AM
  #220
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Jagr was difficult to deal with?

I guess you know something I don't know, but he seemed to be a saint around Renney and seemed to do whatever was asked of him. Personally, I have never been a Jagr fan, but I honestly cannot complain too much about his tenure in New York. He took a franchise that was waffling for years, put it on his back, and brought them to respectability, providing a bridge that included three playoff appearances and two playoff game victories. Play with a rookie? Fine. Play with an enigmatic Hossa? Fine. Jagr seemed to take everything in stride and with a smile. Should he take less money to stay with New York? Why should he? He carried an organization to respectability. Two other players, with inferior pedigrees and who had previously done nothing for the Rangers organization, were given multi-year $7MM contracts. Lundqvist, an RFA-to-be, was given nearly $7MM. Why shouldn't Jagr want that?

I don't disagree much about the 'team' aspect. I spoke about that issue since right after the lockout. But Jagr wasn't the one trying to take away the 'team' aspect - it was just that he was that good and the others were not. The team enters this coming season with a lot of question. You talk about a 'team' evolving - but we do need to take a wait-n-see since the core, which did include Jagr and Straka, even Malik to a certain extent and Shanny was in there and Avery became a part of it, are gone and need to be replaced. Typically a 'team' comes together when you retain the core and add on. This team was largely gutted with 3 of its top 5 scorers not returning; 4 of its top 8. That's three forwards averaging 18+ minutes of ice time, which isn't insignificant. You're entering a season whereby each line will likely have one or two new players. It's a lot to ask to mesh and become a 'team' and also offers significant risk of not becoming a 'team'.

My take thus far is that the deck was significantly shuffled and still needs some more shuffling. It's hard to put on paper what this team will really look like since there are so many similar players outside the obvious 5 or 6 players. We could see players (i.e., Drury) playing out of normal position, which could show some growing pains. There may be too many players (again) in need of PP time and Renney may not be able to figure that out once again since it's just not a matter of shooting more and having traffic in front, for if it was, every team would be doing that with ease.

But again, sometimes you have so many moves that make us excited because there's going to be a definite change, and I think many of us (myself included) did want some type of change. Of course, sometimes you make too many moves, making it tougher to sort things out, and at the end of the day you don't really improve.

I am excited to watch a different brand of hockey. I had hoped it would've been a grittier, more physical brand, but that's because I'm a dinosaur and still love that style of play. It was clear that other teams that were advancing in the finals moved the puck sharper than the Rangers. They played with more speed. The question becomes, though, was having guys like Crosby, Malkin, Zetterberg and Datsyuk what separated those teams from the Rangers and the Rangers will still be looking for their game breaker which would enable the rest of the team to perform their roles?

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 10:38 AM
  #221
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
I didn't want to quote the whole thing, but that's an excellent post. Well done.
I appreciate that. Don't see why people have to quote entire posts.

And yeah, A lot of people don't get the fact that Naslund isn't supposed to replace Jagr.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:01 PM
  #222
z1co80
The Incredible Hank
 
z1co80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
i am delighted with the addition of Zherdev and feel the fact that our play wont be running through the one player will lead us to be a better TEAM. however i do have some concerns regarding Redden and Naslund.

Hopefully my concerns will be proved wrong

z1co80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:08 PM
  #223
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,020
vCash: 500
Am I alone in thinking that Naslund isn't Jagr's replacement, but Shanny's? We replaced Jagr with more depth and more experienced youth.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:27 PM
  #224
Cake or Death
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I guess you know something I don't know, but he seemed to be a saint around Renney and seemed to do whatever was asked of him.
With the exception of giving his all the entire season. You look at his play the last few weeks and in the playoffs, and you have to wonder where that effort was the rest of the season. Because it certainly wasn't there for a large portion of the season, and I was disappointed with it. I imagine the coach and his teammates were, as well. But looking at his play the last few weeks and playoffs, you could have put Mickey Mouse and Goofy on a line with him and he wasn't going to be stopped. Renney was not able to get that player out of him for a large portion of the season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
Personally, I have never been a Jagr fan, but I honestly cannot complain too much about his tenure in New York. He took a franchise that was waffling for years, put it on his back, and brought them to respectability, providing a bridge that included three playoff appearances and two playoff game victories.
I'm not complaining in the least about his stay in NY. Just pointing out that a newish coach and a tough to handle veteran can be a bad mix, and it's a little tougher for a guy like Renney to go ruffling Jagr's feathers. That aside, I am grateful for Jagr's stay in NY. It seemed like a great fit, for both sides.

The Rangers are moving in a new direction. Jagr is going to Russia now, where he can play his last few years near home. I think it was win-win when he was here, and I am perfectly okay with how he departed. He has certainly more than paid his dues and earned his right to play anywhere he pleases, for any amount he can get. If I have any one regret during Jagr's tenure, and it is really my only major regret, it would be that Jagr didn't get the Hart that was rightfully his in his first season in NY. Other than that, I hope he has fun in the Russian league, hope the fans enjoy him there, and I hope he has one year left in him the year after his stint in Russia to maybe play a season in front of the Czech fans. Would be a great ending IMO.

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:34 PM
  #225
Cake or Death
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post
Am I alone in thinking that Naslund isn't Jagr's replacement, but Shanny's? We replaced Jagr with more depth and more experienced youth.
Personally, I don't think you can look at anyone as anyone's replacement. Will Naslund fight or penalty kill? Shanahan did and could. They're two totally different players. I don't think GMs and coaches try to replace players. I tend to think they look at their roster, think about what direction they want the team going, and try to fill those wants with the best available players they can get. You obviously don't always get the ideal players, but there are 29 other teams trying to improve their teams, too.

  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 05:34 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.