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

Lindros '92, Sakic '97, Bure '99, Jagr '01

View Poll Results: Which would have had the greatest positive impact?
Lindros '92 24 19.67%
Sakic '97 65 53.28%
Bure '99 9 7.38%
Jagr '01 24 19.67%
Voters: 122. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-10-2009, 09:27 AM
  #1
NYRfan11
Registered User
 
NYRfan11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 184
vCash: 500
Lindros '92, Sakic '97, Bure '99, Jagr '01

To a varying degree we were close to getting these four guys either at their prime or before it.

Which one of these four would have had the greatest positive impact on the Rangers had they been acquired?

Lindros- While a little bit before my time (became a Rangers fan in Nov '95), the price would have been extremely steep. Doug Weight, Tony Amonte, Alexei Kovalev, John Vanbiesbrouck and three first round draft picks (1993, 1994 & 1995) and $12 million. You could argue the Rangers don't win the Cup if that trade is made. Or you could say Messier and Lindros would have dominated together.

Sakic- This is the one I picked. At the prime of his career, still many great years ahead of him, and the Dark Ages at least partially are avoided if he's here.

Bure- Still had a few great years in Florida after the trade. Definitely would have helped a couple years before injuries got to him.

Jagr- Obviously dominated in 05-06. What wouldve been had he been here four years earlier (although it was a different NHL)?

What do you think?

NYRfan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 09:41 AM
  #2
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRfan11 View Post
To a varying degree we were close to getting these four guys either at their prime or before it.

Which one of these four would have had the greatest positive impact on the Rangers had they been acquired?

Lindros- While a little bit before my time (became a Rangers fan in Nov '95), the price would have been extremely steep. Doug Weight, Tony Amonte, Alexei Kovalev, John Vanbiesbrouck and three first round draft picks (1993, 1994 & 1995) and $12 million. You could argue the Rangers don't win the Cup if that trade is made. Or you could say Messier and Lindros would have dominated together.

Sakic- This is the one I picked. At the prime of his career, still many great years ahead of him, and the Dark Ages at least partially are avoided if he's here.

Bure- Still had a few great years in Florida after the trade. Definitely would have helped a couple years before injuries got to him.

Jagr- Obviously dominated in 05-06. What wouldve been had he been here four years earlier (although it was a different NHL)?

What do you think?
Id go with Sakic as well. Colorado matching that offer sheet in the 97 offseason was the spark that sent this franchise into oblivion for so long. Not to mention Sakic put up hall of fame numbers for a solid decade post 1997.

I still contend that had we acquired Lindros back in 92, this franchise would currently be dealing with a 70 year Stanley Cup drought.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 09:45 AM
  #3
Speedtrials
Registered User
 
Speedtrials's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alphabit City
Country: United States
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Was originally going to go with Jagr in 01, as the package we were offering didn't wind up doing much in the league.(Hlavac, Holmqvist, Johnson) I believe it was Sather unwilling to include Lundmarc or Brendl in the package being what held up the trade. In hindsight, adding either of those prospects in for Jaromir Jagr in his prime, would have easily been worth it. However, considering how poor the team was drafting in the late nineties, Joe Sakic definitely would have been worth the four 1st rounders. With Sakic as our number 1, and Gretzky as our number 2 that team would have made some noise. Plus it would have provided much needed stability to the franchise, instead of sending us into the Dark Ages. So for me, I would have to go with Sakic in 97.

Speedtrials is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 10:03 AM
  #4
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedtrials View Post
Was originally going to go with Jagr in 01, as the package we were offering didn't wind up doing much in the league.(Hlavac, Holmqvist, Johnson) I believe it was Sather unwilling to include Lundmarc or Brendl in the package being what held up the trade. In hindsight, adding either of those prospects in for Jaromir Jagr in his prime, would have easily been worth it. However, considering how poor the team was drafting in the late nineties, Joe Sakic definitely would have been worth the four 1st rounders. With Sakic as our number 1, and Gretzky as our number 2 that team would have made some noise. Plus it would have provided much needed stability to the franchise, instead of sending us into the Dark Ages. So for me, I would have to go with Sakic in 97.
Im not sure how Jagr in 2001 would have worked out...certainly better than the tomato can version of Lindros, Im sure.

Nonetheless, this franchise was a disaster in 2001. Throughout his career, Jagr's performance was directly correlated with how happy he was. It was well documented that he was unhappy in Washington, and his numbers reflect that. One has to wonder how happy he'd be playing for Ron Low and the debacle that was the New York Rangers at that time.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 10:06 AM
  #5
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,895
vCash: 500
Awards:
It's hard to really consider all of these options. The obvious answer is Sakic — as the Ranger would have only given up cash to get him.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 10:17 AM
  #6
TheRedressor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,712
vCash: 500
Definetly Sakic in 97.

It would have completley changed the culture here at the time. Heck we probably would have been more inclined to land Bure and Fleury would have been more effective not having to be this teams leader.

Looking back on it I wish they would have gone even higher with the term and salary offer. Although 6 million was a ridiculously high number at the time, Jagr would soon be making close to 12 million from Pitt per season as well as Kariya making 10 million with the Ducks.

Oh well.....

TheRedressor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 10:19 AM
  #7
Speedtrials
Registered User
 
Speedtrials's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alphabit City
Country: United States
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Im not sure how Jagr in 2001 would have worked out...certainly better than the tomato can version of Lindros, Im sure.

Nonetheless, this franchise was a disaster in 2001. Throughout his career, Jagr's performance was directly correlated with how happy he was. It was well documented that he was unhappy in Washington, and his numbers reflect that. One has to wonder how happy he'd be playing for Ron Low and the debacle that was the New York Rangers at that time.
All great points as that team wasn't very good back then, and Jagr's desire was often questioned during those years. I actually think Jaromir would have played well for Ron Low though. Low's approach was to play a wide open and very aggressive offensive game. I'm not saying we would have been contenders by any means, but I think Jagr would have at least made us a playoff team again.

Speedtrials is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 10:29 AM
  #8
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Sakic 97 because we still would have had a good team and maybe wouldn't have been plunged into 7 years of crap. Jagr 01 was too late plus the culture of the team didn't change until it was forced to at the lockout. Who know if Jagr would have been just another big name. Same goes with Bure. Lindros 92 to me feels like it could have possibly been a negative outcome. Who knows if we would have won the Cup and what would have been given up?

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 10:35 AM
  #9
coolbean04
Registered User
 
coolbean04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It's hard to really consider all of these options. The obvious answer is Sakic as the Ranger would have only given up cash to get him.
I think we would've had to give 4-5 first round picks too.

I believe that rule existed back then.

coolbean04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 10:43 AM
  #10
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,604
vCash: 500
Lindros was a machine.

Sakic had Forsberg.

Jagr had Lemieux.

Lindros could do all on his own and came up short a few times. Add Mark Messier to the picture and you've got yourself one hell of a team.

Pavel Bure couldn't carry a team by himself, he'd get them into the playoffs perhaps or score 45-60 goals but I don't think anybody on this list was as dominate physically and skillfully as Lindros. The man was a TRAIN. I hated playing against the Flyers because of him. He would score. He would set up. He would hit. He would knock our players out of games. He was everything you wanted in a hockey player.

I don't think the NHL ever saw a specimen like him before he arrived. If only his father had thought him how to skate with his damn head up, I think he would have been in the same convo's as the Orr's, Gretzky's, Lemieux's, Howes, ect.

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 10:49 AM
  #11
N9Y4R
Bleed Blue
 
N9Y4R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Gold Coast
Country: United States
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Sakic, would have cost 5 1st rd picks.

And he would have been worth them all +++!

N9Y4R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 11:48 AM
  #12
poeman
Fixing Rangers PP
 
poeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,590
vCash: 500
Sakic, because sakic made everyone 10 times better with all the skills he came with, especially leadership and intangibles

poeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 12:01 PM
  #13
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarretJoseph View Post
Lindros was a machine.

Sakic had Forsberg.

Jagr had Lemieux.

Lindros could do all on his own and came up short a few times. Add Mark Messier to the picture and you've got yourself one hell of a team.

Pavel Bure couldn't carry a team by himself, he'd get them into the playoffs perhaps or score 45-60 goals but I don't think anybody on this list was as dominate physically and skillfully as Lindros. The man was a TRAIN. I hated playing against the Flyers because of him. He would score. He would set up. He would hit. He would knock our players out of games. He was everything you wanted in a hockey player.

I don't think the NHL ever saw a specimen like him before he arrived. If only his father had thought him how to skate with his damn head up, I think he would have been in the same convo's as the Orr's, Gretzky's, Lemieux's, Howes, ect.
If Lindros wasn't made of paper he might have been worth mentioning but Sakic was light years better than Lindros in every facet of the game except hitting and taking hits to the head.

It wasn't just that Lindros kept his head down. I think the genetics in that line were a bit on the fragile side.

Sakic had Forsberg? Sakic was downright great, Forsberg or no Forsberg.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 01:45 PM
  #14
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
If Lindros wasn't made of paper he might have been worth mentioning but Sakic was light years better than Lindros in every facet of the game except hitting and taking hits to the head.

It wasn't just that Lindros kept his head down. I think the genetics in that line were a bit on the fragile side.

Sakic had Forsberg? Sakic was downright great, Forsberg or no Forsberg.
No he wasn't.

When Lindros was healthy, he was un-stopable. Sakic was great but he wouldn't have won the cup without Forsberg who was considered just as great... hence "Peter The Great"....

During the 95/96 season in which Lindros played 73 Games, he scored 47 goals while putting up 115 Points, 163 PIM and 12 pts in the playoffs (12 games)

The following season in 52 games, Lindros scored 32 goals (in 52 games!!) and had 79 points while putting up 26 points in 19 playoff games.


I'm not doubting Sakic's greatness, I'm saying that if given the choice (and not knowing foresight in regards to injuries) I'd have picked Lindros.

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 02:03 PM
  #15
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarretJoseph View Post
No he wasn't.

When Lindros was healthy, he was un-stopable. Sakic was great but he wouldn't have won the cup without Forsberg who was considered just as great... hence "Peter The Great"....

During the 95/96 season in which Lindros played 73 Games, he scored 47 goals while putting up 115 Points, 163 PIM and 12 pts in the playoffs (12 games)

The following season in 52 games, Lindros scored 32 goals (in 52 games!!) and had 79 points while putting up 26 points in 19 playoff games.


I'm not doubting Sakic's greatness, I'm saying that if given the choice (and not knowing foresight in regards to injuries) I'd have picked Lindros.
Back in '92, this was the reported offer that the Rangers presented Quebec:

Lindros for Doug Weight, Tony Amonte, Alexei Kovalev, John Vanbiesbrouck and three first round draft picks (1993, 1994 & 1995).

Thats a gut job on the organization, and considering where Lindros career did wind up going over the long run, Ill take the 94 championship and be content with that.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 02:21 PM
  #16
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
I went with Lindros.

For me, when i looked down the list, i had to ask how the player would have impacted our team at that time. It's not even really fair to Sakic, Bure, and Jagr, because our team was a mess during those dark years. None of those players would have been able to help the fact that years of terrible drafting had left the team devoid of young talent, or injuries in net would have left us without a healthy Richter. Not to mention the horrible coaches we had.

On the other hand, in 92 we were a team that had the pieces to contend. Adding an emerging superstar like Lindros would have hurt team depth, but i dont know how big of problem that would be when you have a young Leetch, Graves, Richter, Zubov....and Mess in his prime.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 03:22 PM
  #17
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,521
vCash: 500
Lindros and Messier would have dominated, however the team would have been gutted and gutted for years. Philly never won the cup and the Rangers wouldn't have either.

Bure, although phenomenal at it, he's a 1 dimensional guy and a guy like that isn't enough to tip the scales in a 7 game series, as he didn't.

Jagr, needed to experience Washington in order to succeed in NY. Come straight here and who knows what happens. He's got elite skills but his head needs to be in the right place. A slow start in NY, a harsh crowd and a poor coach and who knows how his tenure here would have ended up.

Sakic, has to be the winner. One of the best players in the league for many years. He's a huge talent and a great leader. Colorado is lucky to have this guy play for their franchise, he's a world class player and professional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It's hard to really consider all of these options. The obvious answer is Sakic — as the Ranger would have only given up cash to get him.
I thought the Rangers would have been penalized 4 first rounders and Smith stated that the draft was going to be weak for the next couple years so it wasn't like losing much. Wasn't it like a 3 year 21 million deal that was front loaded to try and bust Colorado which they ended up matching?....side note...should have kept Messier for the 18 million, probably less if you went to North Carolina, went fishing and shared a beer.

vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 03:27 PM
  #18
poeman
Fixing Rangers PP
 
poeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini View Post
For me, when i looked down the list, i had to ask how the player would have impacted our team at that time. It's not even really fair to Sakic, Bure, and Jagr, because our team was a mess during those dark years. None of those players would have been able to help the fact that years of terrible drafting had left the team devoid of young talent, or injuries in net would have left us without a healthy Richter. Not to mention the horrible coaches we had.

On the other hand, in 92 we were a team that had the pieces to contend. Adding an emerging superstar like Lindros would have hurt team depth, but i dont know how big of problem that would be when you have a young Leetch, Graves, Richter, Zubov....and Mess in his prime.

Its tough to predict because if we get Lindros in 92 then we most likely never trade Zubov...and lets think about this Zubov is one of the greatest russian dmen of all time

poeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 03:32 PM
  #19
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarretJoseph View Post
No he wasn't.

When Lindros was healthy, he was un-stopable. Sakic was great but he wouldn't have won the cup without Forsberg who was considered just as great... hence "Peter The Great"....

During the 95/96 season in which Lindros played 73 Games, he scored 47 goals while putting up 115 Points, 163 PIM and 12 pts in the playoffs (12 games)

The following season in 52 games, Lindros scored 32 goals (in 52 games!!) and had 79 points while putting up 26 points in 19 playoff games.


I'm not doubting Sakic's greatness, I'm saying that if given the choice (and not knowing foresight in regards to injuries) I'd have picked Lindros.
Your argument reminds me of the argument that if Gaborik weren't injury prone he would be the greatest. The problem with talks about Gaborik and Lindros is the reality that they both break down on a regular basis.

I don't give a rat's tail what someone's potential is or what they would have done if this or if that. I care about what they actually do and that's it.

If Lindros didn't break down he would have been an all-timer but he broke down more often than a poorly made American car and acquiring him was among the worst moves this team has made in recent memory.

By the way, I never said Colorado didn't need Forsberg but Sakic was great whether or not Forsberg was out there or not. If you're truly looking for a player who made a somewhat phony rep on the backs of Forsberg AND Sakic, look no further than our own Drury.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 03:33 PM
  #20
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
Lindros

A 19 year old Lindros to go with Messier coming off winning his 2nd Hart in three seasons to a 22 year old defenseman who just won a Norris to a 22 year old budding power forward to a 24 year old goaltender who had not yet reached his potential. Throw in James Patrick(who would have possibly replaced VBK if he refused to report to Quebec). Jeff Buekeboom. Sergei Zubov who was about to join the Rangers organization. Mike Gartner. Darren Turcotte. Sergei Nemchiniov. Kris King. Tie Domi. Roger Neilson and Colin Campbell behind the bench. They would have had the assets to acquire Kevin Lowe from Edmonton.

That Ranger team was better than any of the teams in this poll.

Those other moves were band-aids moves.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 03:48 PM
  #21
pete3589
Registered User
 
pete3589's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
I'm Lindros all the way on this.

Sure, we did win the cup in 94, with help from Kovalev et. al. on that trade list, but Lindros simply dominated early on in his career. He was simply unstoppable in his prime, and that would have made it possible for multiple cup runs with Leetch, Graves, Richter, Zubov etc.

Lindros never had a goaltender on Philly when he was in his prime, and that cost him the cup(s).

Lindros, Mess, Richter of the early/mid 90's would have been equal to or better than the Malkin, Crosby, Fleury combo that Pittsburgh is going to march out there and contend with for the next 5+ years.

Sure Sakic could have prevented the dark ages, but that may have been prevented altogether with Lindros on this team.

Very interesting poll. Need more like this

pete3589 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 03:58 PM
  #22
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
I just checked their career stats and Sakic broke 100 points 6 times. Lindros only once.

I really believe that a lot of fans here don't realize just how great Sakic was because he played out West and we didn't see him all that much while we saw Lindros as a Ranger and constantly in Eastern conference games.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 05:13 PM
  #23
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolbean04 View Post
I think we would've had to give 4-5 first round picks too.

I believe that rule existed back then.
Yeah, Sakic was a at the time a restricted free agent, or what was the equivalent of it at the time. All I know is that the Royalties that were paid to the Pepsi Center and to the Avalanche for letting them use the arena to film Air Force One were a big part of what helped Colorado give Sakic his payday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarretJoseph View Post
Sakic had Forsberg.
They each had great seasons with and without each other.

Quote:
Jagr had Lemieux.
Again, Lemieux was a great player before and after Jagr, and Jagr was still a dominant player after Lemieux.

Quote:
Lindros could do all on his own and came up short a few times. Add Mark Messier to the picture and you've got yourself one hell of a team.
I agree, but the price we would have paid to get him would have crippled the core, and we could still be looking at no cup in 70+ years.

Quote:
Pavel Bure couldn't carry a team by himself, he'd get them into the playoffs perhaps or score 45-60 goals but I don't think anybody on this list was as dominate physically and skillfully as Lindros. The man was a TRAIN. I hated playing against the Flyers because of him. He would score. He would set up. He would hit. He would knock our players out of games. He was everything you wanted in a hockey player.

I don't think the NHL ever saw a specimen like him before he arrived. If only his father had thought him how to skate with his damn head up, I think he would have been in the same convo's as the Orr's, Gretzky's, Lemieux's, Howes, ect.
I agree, but I don't think he would have impacted the team like Sakic would have for that near decade that we missed the playoffs. Gretzky might have stayd a couple of more years, and we would have had one of the top 3-5 best players in the world for another 4-5 years, and a legit top-line center for another 10 or so years.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 05:15 PM
  #24
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,226
vCash: 500
all of them would have been worth the price, but I would go with Lindros.

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 05:41 PM
  #25
otto1219
Registered User
 
otto1219's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 998
vCash: 500
sakic did nothing before roy and nothing after him. He is a great leader and hall of fame player, but lindros in 92 was him as a rookie. Without goaltending, he pretty much led the flyers into the flyers (where they were decimated) but i think he would have had a better supporting cast in NY than he had in Philadelphia. Leclaire and Renberg did damn near nothing after Lindros got hurt.

otto1219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.