HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Rangers be will tweeting LIVE from tonight's fan forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2009, 11:06 AM
  #76
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
100% correct... and we made the playoffs every year as well. Our kids are coming up and playing and things are looking upward for us and our future.

But we still lost an elite prospect, and don't kid yourself into thinking that doesn't set back the organization some, because it does. Only one other team has lost a top prospect and that was Vancouver with bourdon.... but that's still not as bad as losing what should have become a franchise forward who could have been an elite forward for a long time. Bourdon would have been good, but I dont think he would have been an elite dman.

It will have a huge impact for us for years. I mean imagine if Patrick Kane just suddenly had a career ending injury (knock on wood, i would hope this never happens just using a comparative) it would have a huge effect on Chicago for years.... that is what happened to us 2x in the past decade... once with Chernaski and now w/ Cherry.

we still haven't recovered from missing our 2003 pick, and Blackburn's injury that forced us to take Montoya... add on top now we have to recover from Cherry's death. That's alot.
I liked Cherneski but we have little more than a clue how he would have turned out. Elevating him to greatness is stretching what was expected of him, even in his ballyhooed days.

The best player I have seen go down here in the last 10 years was Kloucek, by a country mile, and I wish he hadn't but he was a dman, not a forward.

Look, Cherepanov may have turned out great. What no one ever addresses is that it was not a given even if it was likely. Lots of players are supposed to make it big and don't. It's just a fact of life.

By the way, I never was impressed at all by Blackburn's game and no way he was the equal of Lundqvist so his injury meant zero in the fortunes of this team.

You are offering up excuses for a stunningly embarrassing lack of quality drafted forwards to make it in a Rangers uniform. Since the demise of Cherneski, a bounty of talented forwards have hit the league but not a single one has hit here yet. They may eventually, but for now it is hard to imagine a less successful run of 10 years in finding young, talented forwards.

No one can argue that with logic. It can't be done.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 11:17 AM
  #77
Rags225
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
I liked Cherneski but we have little more than a clue how he would have turned out. Elevating him to greatness is stretching what was expected of him, even in his ballyhooed days.

The best player I have seen go down here in the last 10 years was Kloucek, by a country mile, and I wish he hadn't but he was a dman, not a forward.

Look, Cherepanov may have turned out great. What no one ever addresses is that it was not a given even if it was likely. Lots of players are supposed to make it big and don't. It's just a fact of life.

By the way, I never was impressed at all by Blackburn's game and no way he was the equal of Lundqvist so his injury meant zero in the fortunes of this team.

You are offering up excuses for a stunningly embarrassing lack of quality drafted forwards to make it in a Rangers uniform. Since the demise of Cherneski, a bounty of talented forwards have hit the league but not a single one has hit here yet. They may eventually, but for now it is hard to imagine a less successful run of 10 years in finding young, talented forwards.

No one can argue that with logic. It can't be done.
you can't say that... his injury was the direct cause of us wasting a first round pick on Montoya. That pick couuld have been used for something else. What it is we don't know.

We did have a string of bad luck over the years... i mean when we did have a top 5 pick it turned out to be one of the worst drafts in NHL history.

but you are correct, that there isn't a reason why we couldn't get at least one more good forward. I am just saying that we could have had two but they were met with tragedy. These things happen, but we did have a string of really bad luck.

But it looks like our fortunes are changing. We have a great stockpile of kids, who can be traded if more tragedy befalls us, to fill in areas up front. We have also finally gotten lucky in the drafts w/ Grachev and Anisimov falling to us. And Stepan as well.

Sometimes luck can change, and it looks like we are starting to get some good luck in the drafting tables. After all the draft is one big crapshoot, and you do get lucky especially after the first round.


Last edited by Rags225: 09-03-2009 at 11:30 AM.
Rags225 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 11:28 AM
  #78
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,117
vCash: 500
I'm also not sure you can say that Blackburn was in no way equal to Lundqvist...we'll never know. He was much much younger than Lundqvist when he played in the league, and on some incredibly terrible Ranger teams that had no clue about defense.

It may be unlikely that he would have been as good as Lundqvist, but we honestly just won't ever know

Quote:
you can't say that... his injury was the direct result of us wasting a first round pick on Montoya. That pick couuld have been used for something else. What it is we don't know.
You mean picking Montoya was a direct result of Blackburn's injury, I assume

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 11:37 AM
  #79
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
you can't say that... his injury was the direct result of us wasting a first round pick on Montoya. That pick couuld have been used for something else. What it is we don't know.
I vehemently disagree with this. At the time I thought that picking Montoya was a giant waste of a pick despite circumstances. I'm of the school that believes taking any goaltender there is a bad move, but that is a different discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
These things happen, but we did have a string of really bad luck.
This in no way excuses horrific drafting over a long period of time. Now I'm hearing that post-lockout, Sather has done a terrific job. Might turn out to be true. Might not. We'll see. It is wayyyyyyy too early to determine that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
But it looks like our fortunes are changing. We have a great stockpile of kids, who can be traded if more tragedy befalls us, to fill in areas up front. We have also finally gotten lucky in the drafts w/ Grachev and Anisimov falling to us. And Stepan as well.
They may pan out. They may not. We'll see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
Sometimes luck can change, and it looks like we are starting to get some good luck in the drafting tables. After all the draft is one big crapshoot, and you do get lucky especially after the first round.
The draft is not entirely the crapshoot you claim it to be. If it were, Detroit, while having terrible picks every year, could not continue to be the drafting machine it is. Their scouting and decision-making is vastly superior to ours. Granted they are better than everyone else at the draft table, too but they are infinitely better than our decision makers.

If your staff is not performing, you toss them. This is the way of the business world. Aside from churning coaches, this is not how it has worked at this country club organization.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 11:41 AM
  #80
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
I'm also not sure you can say that Blackburn was in no way equal to Lundqvist...we'll never know. He was much much younger than Lundqvist when he played in the league, and on some incredibly terrible Ranger teams that had no clue about defense.

It may be unlikely that he would have been as good as Lundqvist, but we honestly just won't ever know
You're right, I can't know for sure. I was just never impressed by Blackburn. Personal opinion. Nothing more than that.

What I do know is that the Rangers are blessed to have their current goaltender and he is arguably as good as anyone in the league, so goaltending isn't a problem.

Scoring goals and physically dominating other teams is what this team has lacked for more than 10 years. Hopefully, some of those being touted will correct the issue.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 11:48 AM
  #81
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,117
vCash: 500
hey they didn't lack for scoring goals in '05-06!

and honestly who was expecting that to happen

06-07 wasn't bad either

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 11:58 AM
  #82
Rags225
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
I vehemently disagree with this. At the time I thought that picking Montoya was a giant waste of a pick despite circumstances. I'm of the school that believes taking any goaltender there is a bad move, but that is a different discussion.
How can you disagree with this? If Blackburn wasn't injured we wouldn't have drafted Montoya. Because Blackburn was injured we drafted Montoya b/c we needed a good goalie for the future and Lundy wasn't thought of as a savior.

Whether or not you agreed with the pick, you can argue over and that is fine, and you do make a valid point about taking goalies that early.

However saying that Blackburn's injury did not affect our first round draft pick in 2004 is just being naive... and I know you aren't naive but rather a very good poster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
This in no way excuses horrific drafting over a long period of time. Now I'm hearing that post-lockout, Sather has done a terrific job. Might turn out to be true. Might not. We'll see. It is wayyyyyyy too early to determine that.
I'm not saying that it is an excuse for other bad drafting. I am just saying that we did have a rash of extremely bad luck with our best prospects. That did set us back. I don't know how can you deny it. Every career ending injury (and death) set us back in various ways.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
The draft is not entirely the crapshoot you claim it to be. If it were, Detroit, while having terrible picks every year, could not continue to be the drafting machine it is. Their scouting and decision-making is vastly superior to ours. Granted they are better than everyone else at the draft table, too but they are infinitely better than our decision makers.

If your staff is not performing, you toss them. This is the way of the business world. Aside from churning coaches, this is not how it has worked at this country club organization.
Detroit's big stars have been coming in the very late rounds. yes it is due to good scouting that they choose them, but it is also very lucky that they get superstars in the late rounds.

Getting a superstar in anything past the 3rd round is luck. plain and simple b/c if you know they are going to be great than you would choose them first to make sure that you get them. And really getting a superstar in the 3rd round is pretty lucky as well.

People have hunches, and hopes that these players turn out the way they do, but really you don't know. There is alot of luck involved in drafting.

Rags225 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 01:16 PM
  #83
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
...People have hunches, and hopes that these players turn out the way they do, but really you don't know. There is alot of luck involved in drafting.
Luck matters once or twice. We have enough of a read in time of Detoit's overall management of assets and luck is not the key. They just do a way better job than the Rangers (and most everyone else).

Detroit's gambling is much more educated than the Rangers gambling and I would argue that any management team should be able to pick early but the smart ones can continue to make quality picks after the 1st round is over.

I know some professional gamblers and have been involved in the industry in the past and gambling is a science of sorts but it is mostly about money management, the key to all investing. Detroit is good gambling. Rangers have been the "sucker" gambler for too long.

Until the last few seasons, I thought that Lou in NJ was the best, but he stumbled over the Cap a bit. Nevertheless, he did snare Parise and I also like Zajac quite a bit and he will somehow pull another one out again this year because he usually does. He is a shrewd dude.

Edit: I also like Clarkson a lot, even if Avery thinks he is a nothing.


Last edited by chosen: 09-03-2009 at 01:28 PM.
chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 01:19 PM
  #84
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
How can you disagree with this? If Blackburn wasn't injured we wouldn't have drafted Montoya. Because Blackburn was injured we drafted Montoya b/c we needed a good goalie for the future and Lundy wasn't thought of as a savior.
You might be right and perhaps it is my utter disdain for Sather that taints my opinion but I have found that if there is a wrong choice to make, he has too often made it.

When they announced the Montoya pick on TV, I listened to the announcers ridicule Sather and then I shut off the draft and left the house in disgust.

Taking a goalie early is the same thing as taking a RB early in the NFL draft. It is usually the wrong move.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 02:11 PM
  #85
Rags225
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Luck matters once or twice. We have enough of a read in time of Detoit's overall management of assets and luck is not the key. They just do a way better job than the Rangers (and most everyone else).

Detroit's gambling is much more educated than the Rangers gambling and I would argue that any management team should be able to pick early but the smart ones can continue to make quality picks after the 1st round is over.

I know some professional gamblers and have been involved in the industry in the past and gambling is a science of sorts but it is mostly about money management, the key to all investing. Detroit is good gambling. Rangers have been the "sucker" gambler for too long.

Until the last few seasons, I thought that Lou in NJ was the best, but he stumbled over the Cap a bit. Nevertheless, he did snare Parise and I also like Zajac quite a bit and he will somehow pull another one out again this year because he usually does. He is a shrewd dude.

Edit: I also like Clarkson a lot, even if Avery thinks he is a nothing.
ok very fair point, and I do agree for the most part. It is a science, but not an exact one so there is some luck involved.

A great example is that Holmstrom, if his draft class was now wouldn't even have been drafted at all. The fact that he was the 9th player Detroit drafted shows that Detroit thought there were at least 8 players worth more than them. Out of those 8 only 1 other person they drafted played in at least one full season, with their first rounder only playing 56 games.

Starting from 1994 draft (Holmstrom's draft) they had complete bust draft years in 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, and its looking like 2003 was a bust as well.

Really what saved them was one great pick in each of the following years... 1994 (Holmstrom 10th rd), 1998 (Datsyuk 6th rd), 1999 (Zetterberg 7th rd), 2000 (Kronwal 1st rd), 2004 (Franzen 3rd rd).

Only in 2002 did they get multiple good picks in Hudler (2nd rd) and Flippula (3rd rd)

really, most of their drafts were quite horrible if you look at what else was taken. Those superstar picks in the late rounds saved them from otherwise very very poor drafting.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/t...r00005492.html

and if your really want to go back... their entire run was set up by the 1989 draft in which they got both Lidstrom and Fedorov in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

What helped their drafting is great free agent signings and trades.... getting Hull and Shannahan is really what made that franchise take off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
You might be right and perhaps it is my utter disdain for Sather that taints my opinion but I have found that if there is a wrong choice to make, he has too often made it.

When they announced the Montoya pick on TV, I listened to the announcers ridicule Sather and then I shut off the draft and left the house in disgust.

Taking a goalie early is the same thing as taking a RB early in the NFL draft. It is usually the wrong move.
I won't argue that Sather has made alot of wrong choices. he has, and we all know it.

This wasn't one of the worst (at the time) b/c of the situation we were in with no forseeable starting goalie of the future. I still think that Blackburn would have been a top 10 goalie, maybe not as good as Lundy, but than again we would have both and that would be a delightful little problem. But the unfortunate injury to Blackburn I believe was the direct precedent to us getting Montoya (which I hope it is). If Blackburn was still with us and Sather drafted Montoya than yes this would have been the dumbest draft move we made.

Whether or not to draft a goalie that high is another argument all together... and frankly one that I am torn on, although it depends on the draft year and draft position as well.

Rags225 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 02:44 PM
  #86
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
Compare all of the names of those Detroit players with who the Rangers have acquired over that same time span and it is downright embarrassing.

You can't hit consistent home runs in the draft, but Detroit, over time, has belted quite a few out of the park. The Rangers have Lundqvist and Staal so far and Sather wasn't responsible for Lundqvist (arguable point).

Yes, Detroit has also been far shrewder at acquiring players as well, which flies in the face of those that defend Sather as being a great trader.

The best thing you can say about Sather's trades is that they haven't been horrible but then again, how could they have been, he had no one good to lose in a trade except for Staal and Lundqvist and if he had traded either or both of them, there would still be some here telling me that post-lockout he's done a good job. It is the mantra of his remaining defenders.

And in case anyone wants to bring it up, getting Jagr was all about money, and not about his brilliant trading abilities.

The only thing I am encouraged about is that usually I'm being sold that so and so is coming. Now I'm hearing it about 4 or 5 players and if even two of those pan out we will be much better off than we currently are.

If none of the "messiahs" works out at forward, will there be anyone left still supporting Sather? Sadly, yes.

Edit: I also love Helm.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 03:32 PM
  #87
Rags225
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Compare all of the names of those Detroit players with who the Rangers have acquired over that same time span and it is downright embarrassing.

You can't hit consistent home runs in the draft, but Detroit, over time, has belted quite a few out of the park. The Rangers have Lundqvist and Staal so far and Sather wasn't responsible for Lundqvist (arguable point).

Yes, Detroit has also been far shrewder at acquiring players as well, which flies in the face of those that defend Sather as being a great trader.

The best thing you can say about Sather's trades is that they haven't been horrible but then again, how could they have been, he had no one good to lose in a trade except for Staal and Lundqvist and if he had traded either or both of them, there would still be some here telling me that post-lockout he's done a good job. It is the mantra of his remaining defenders.

And in case anyone wants to bring it up, getting Jagr was all about money, and not about his brilliant trading abilities.

The only thing I am encouraged about is that usually I'm being sold that so and so is coming. Now I'm hearing it about 4 or 5 players and if even two of those pan out we will be much better off than we currently are.

If none of the "messiahs" works out at forward, will there be anyone left still supporting Sather? Sadly, yes.

Edit: I also love Helm.
you're right... we only drafted 1 player that can hold a candle to that and that is Marc Savard... who we then traded away like retards.

also in that time period we made two of the worst other trades in Rangers history in trading Zubov and Norstrom.

Those three trades right there set us up for the dark ages (especially Zubov and Norstrom)... but none of those trades were Sathers fault. But letting Schneider go was.

So our entire upper management for years made horrible trades that set us up for failure... then throw in horrible luck w/ Richter (which led us to trade a way Zidlicky), Blackburn, Cherneski, Kloucek injuries.... and Cherapanovs death... and this is what you get.... we are finally, it looks, getting past the bad moves of the 1990's.

I still can't imagine that we could have had a defense of Zubov, Norstrom, and Leetch for a decade... maybe even Schneider.... Jesus that would be one hell of a defense.

so for about a decade 1995-2004 we had... horrible trades, horrible UFA decisions, bad drafting and bad injury luck going all at once.... and we still couldn't land a top 2 pick... but to blame Sather for everything isn't fair, since he wasn't given all that much to start out with in the likes of prospects or even many good younger roster players to begin with.... I think he might actually be finally getting it.

Let's hope that some of our touted prospects actually work out though. it's all we can do.

Rags225 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2009, 07:38 PM
  #88
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,050
vCash: 500
the entire thing is now up on Rangers On Demand.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:04 AM
  #89
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
the entire thing is now up on Rangers On Demand.
What time in the video does Drury get asked about his contract?

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 12:40 PM
  #90
ibleedredandblue
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6
vCash: 500
Avery: I wonder how many sophisticated ladies there are in the crowd. Of those, who will I invite out for a night on the town. (critiquing paintings and sculptures followed by wine)

Henrik: Not one of the people wearing my jersey can pull it off.

ibleedredandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 12:45 PM
  #91
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
What time in the video does Drury get asked about his contract?
I watched the whole thing yesterday and couldnt find it, or the part about gomez being a girl. I'm pretty sure they edited some things out.

FLYLine24* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 12:59 PM
  #92
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine24 View Post
I watched the whole thing yesterday and couldnt find it, or the part about gomez being a girl. I'm pretty sure they edited some things out.
Yeah I wound up watching it last night too...

Brashear got more cheers than Higgins & Kotalik...

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 01:41 PM
  #93
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,050
vCash: 500
yeah, looks like they edited out anything that might have been inflammatory or what not.

sissies.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 01:49 PM
  #94
Bluenote13
20 down, 34 to go !
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
yeah, looks like they edited out anything that might have been inflammatory or what not.

sissies.
Yeah whats going on, I thought that 'smart & classy' was out now that Renney's gone

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 02:05 PM
  #95
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Yeah whats going on, I thought that 'smart & classy' was out now that Renney's gone
smart and classy? thats what youre calling this? its called censorship, even the question about drury living up to his contract was a valid one, im actually surprised people booed at him...i wouldnt have had the balls to ask it, but i do think about it a lot.

i coulda sworn freedom of speech was still in the constitution.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 02:32 PM
  #96
Bluenote13
20 down, 34 to go !
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
smart and classy? thats what youre calling this? its called censorship, even the question about drury living up to his contract was a valid one, im actually surprised people booed at him...i wouldnt have had the balls to ask it, but i do think about it a lot.

i coulda sworn freedom of speech was still in the constitution.
Theres a time and place for those questions, this event was not one of them. This was a meet and greet, not William F Buckley's Firing Line

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 02:35 PM
  #97
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Theres a time and place for those questions, this event was not one of them. This was a meet and greet, not William F Buckley's Firing Line
I totally disagree...when else does a fan get the opportunity to talk one on one and ask a player these tough questions. You never hear them from the media, at least posed directly to the player. I frankly wanted to hear Drurys response.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 02:40 PM
  #98
squishy
Registered User
 
squishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
smart and classy? thats what youre calling this? its called censorship, even the question about drury living up to his contract was a valid one, im actually surprised people booed at him...i wouldnt have had the balls to ask it, but i do think about it a lot.

i coulda sworn freedom of speech was still in the constitution.
The Rangers are under no obligation to report every second of the fan forum. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech at all. Their business is to promote their product, period.

It's not like they prevented the press from reporting the full account of events or prevented the person from asking the question in the first place.

There are plenty of reasons to complain about the Rangers. Getting on them for not promoting something that makes their product look bad isn't one of them.

squishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 02:44 PM
  #99
Bluenote13
20 down, 34 to go !
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
I totally disagree...when else does a fan get the opportunity to talk one on one and ask a player these tough questions. You never hear them from the media, at least posed directly to the player. I frankly wanted to hear Drurys response.
Haha, this wasn't a stockholder meeting was it?

Anyway, Drury being asked about 'living up to his contract' is a loaded question, and many would consider it quite unfair for the time and place, a casual meet and greet.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 02:47 PM
  #100
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishy View Post
The Rangers are under no obligation to report every second of the fan forum. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech at all. Their business is to promote their product, period.

It's not like they prevented the press from reporting the full account of events or prevented the person from asking the question in the first place.

There are plenty of reasons to complain about the Rangers. Getting on them for not promoting something that makes their product look bad isn't one of them.
with that, i agree...but it still bothers me, especially since i didnt have a chance to actually go there and watch it myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Haha, this wasn't a stockholder meeting was it?

Anyway, Drury being asked about 'living up to his contract' is a loaded question, and many would consider it quite unfair for the time and place, a casual meet and greet.
i couldnt care less if its a loaded question, i just wanna hear his response...apparently he handled it well, which is great, but i still want to hear it

regarding the time and place...let me know what other time and place the Rangers allow fans to directly interact with the players in a Q&A format where it is allowed....basically its not, the players are shielded from that kind of scrutiny...which is a bit annoying. i just wish the reporters would ask some of the harder questions, but i guess they dont want to burn those bridges such that the players just wont talk to them again, which makes sense.

Inferno 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 09:05 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.