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

I'm changing my tune on Callahan's status on this team.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-04-2010, 12:53 PM
  #76
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You bet it's easier. It's pretty hard to develop a superstar when you're never in the position to obtain one.

Great teams don't just have superstars. They have Ryan Callahans, too. If you look at how most great teams are built, it's a lot more common for them to acquire the Ryan Callahan type player through trade than the superstar player.
I agree. Since we're resigned to the fact that Dolan will never allow this team to draft top 5, if we can package Callahan for an elite talent, I'd do it. Getting an elite talent through UFA costs too much money and would hamstring us from also acquiring those Ryan Callahan types.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 01:12 PM
  #77
ThirdEye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 11,666
vCash: 500
Callahan is not good enough to get an elite player in return. He might get us a nice 2nd liner though with higher upside because of his intangibles that teams seem to like. I'm not sure it would be worth it in that case, because every time they pan to Callahan you can see in his eyes that he is 100% dedicated to this team, and you know he will only get better. I'm not sure I can say that about anyone else on this team besides maybe Hank and Gaborik. Drury too, but we got the guy too late in his career. These types of players are out there but they're kind of hard to find.

ThirdEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 01:40 PM
  #78
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
Callahan's the type of player that you would love to see be on the team for his whole career. Of course in today's NHL those players aren't too common.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 02:06 PM
  #79
BlueShirts702
Registered User
 
BlueShirts702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: City of Sin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,256
vCash: 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You bet it's easier. It's pretty hard to develop a superstar when you're never in the position to obtain one.

Great teams don't just have superstars. They have Ryan Callahans, too. If you look at how most great teams are built, it's a lot more common for them to acquire the Ryan Callahan type player through trade than the superstar player.
So, Gaborik isn't a super star? We have a super star. We need a supporting cast.

BlueShirts702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 02:09 PM
  #80
Panfork
Pacioretty Hater
 
Panfork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
I don't know about that statement as a whole...

Hank in my mind is a better goalie than Richter

Cally is great...but PLEASE don't compare him to Gravy...Cally will never score 50 goals in a season...and he will never be in the top-five on the Rangers all time goals list...

Leetch is my favorite player EVER...so I am almost pained to say it...but give MDZ a few years...

As for Messier...I think Rangers fans have a big big problem with comparing Messier to every captain...Mark was a generational type player...simply one of the greatest leaders in sports history...you aren't going to find that for a long, long time...if ever...

BUT...if you take one guys goal scoring (Gabby) and one guys leadership (Drury...maybe Cally one day), then you can get the same effect...
No offense but that's a terrible judgment call. People seriously underestimate Richter because of his injury problem and short career, but I'd rank him up there with the top 5 goalies of all time. With Sawchuk, Brodeur (as much as I hate to admit it), and of course, the best goalie of all time in MY opinion, Patrick Roy.

As for the Callahan statements, I fully agree. Callahan should be a career Ranger. He's an amazing player with incredible heart and grit. After last night, what he's done for this team has just overwhelmed me and I think I can safely say he's probably my favourite player still playing in the NHL. (farewell Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr) Rangers should, and I'm pretty sure they intend to, keep Callahan for as long as they can, unless some kind of miraculous trade comes along (and I mean miraculous, Dustin Brown can suck it), or if he asks an absolutely outrageous price for himself. (I can't see Cally doing that to the team)

I dig Callahan, and I want him on the team forever.

Panfork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 02:16 PM
  #81
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panfork View Post
No offense but that's a terrible judgment call. People seriously underestimate Richter because of his injury problem and short career, but I'd rank him up there with the top 5 goalies of all time. With Sawchuk, Brodeur (as much as I hate to admit it), and of course, the best goalie of all time in MY opinion, Patrick Roy.
From 94-97, I thought Richter was the best goalie in the world, and theres something to be said for that. But longevity plays a role in determining the top 5 goalies ever, and I dont think Richter fits there.

I think hes firmly entrenched in that second tear of all-time netminders. Think Ed Belfour level.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 02:22 PM
  #82
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panfork View Post
No offense but that's a terrible judgment call. People seriously underestimate Richter because of his injury problem and short career, but I'd rank him up there with the top 5 goalies of all time. With Sawchuk, Brodeur (as much as I hate to admit it), and of course, the best goalie of all time in MY opinion, Patrick Roy.

As for the Callahan statements, I fully agree. Callahan should be a career Ranger. He's an amazing player with incredible heart and grit. After last night, what he's done for this team has just overwhelmed me and I think I can safely say he's probably my favourite player still playing in the NHL. (farewell Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr) Rangers should, and I'm pretty sure they intend to, keep Callahan for as long as they can, unless some kind of miraculous trade comes along (and I mean miraculous, Dustin Brown can suck it), or if he asks an absolutely outrageous price for himself. (I can't see Cally doing that to the team)

I dig Callahan, and I want him on the team forever.
I respect your opinion and we all love Mike. If you asked me to pick my favorite Ranger goalie...he is my answer.

BUT...if I needed to win one single game...I'm taking Hank.

dtrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 02:40 PM
  #83
Panfork
Pacioretty Hater
 
Panfork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,377
vCash: 500
Obviously you tank Hank over Mike.

They're from different time periods. It's like saying Ovechkin is better than Gretzky, he is, but not for his time.

If you compare Mike Richter to the time period he was in, I still rate him in the top 5 best goalies in history.

Panfork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 02:45 PM
  #84
OrbitalDynamics
Ants? Solid Plan.
 
OrbitalDynamics's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stalag Luft LGA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,984
vCash: 50
All the more reason to sell Cally now for the precious draft picks.We should sell anyone worth a used practice puck.

Think of the ransom we'd get in picks and draft picks the suckage would provide us with!!!!

Long term thinking right?

OrbitalDynamics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 03:27 PM
  #85
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panfork View Post
Obviously you tank Hank over Mike.

They're from different time periods. It's like saying Ovechkin is better than Gretzky, he is, but not for his time.

If you compare Mike Richter to the time period he was in, I still rate him in the top 5 best goalies in history.
Sorry to derail this, but

I hate the Ovechkin vs. Gretzky argument. People forget how good Gretzky really was. Let's not forget that Gretzky put up 72 points in 96-97 and 67 the following year when he was 36 & 37 years old. That was right in the early/middle of the dead puck era, with all the clutching and grabbing, 2 line pass, etc.

The way Gretzky saw the ice is unparalleled to anyone. He had so much skill just from his vision and ability to make plays that it was amazing.
Ovechkin plays with brute force and speed. You just hope that as his body starts to catch up to him that he can adjust his style.

Personally I think of Ovechkin as a player who peaks and drops hard unless he becomes like Jagr as he gets older. Whereas Crosby will be the player who will be good even when he's in his late 30s.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 03:33 PM
  #86
Wraparounds
Powerful Wizard
 
Wraparounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,381
vCash: 500
No trading. Mine.

Wraparounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 03:48 PM
  #87
Callahan Auto
Rational Police
 
Callahan Auto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
I think most of us realize that we're not going to have a real shot at contending until we lose DRR (I think that's the best way to describe Drury/Redden/Rozi because those were major Durrrrr moves). However we do have some pieces to build around. I look at hockey as building options. This may be a little optimistic but here's how I look at our forwards for a couple years from now:

#1 options: Gaborik
#2 options: None (potentially Kreider)
#3 options: None (potentially Kreider, Stepan, or Grachev)
#4 options: Dubinsky, if he can develop into a solid 55/60 point player, which I think he will. (also Kreider, Stepan, Grachev)
#5 options: Callahan, if he can be a solid 30 goal, 55 point player. If not he'll drop down.
#6 options: Anisimov, though he could move up if he puts things together.
#7 options: Someone who will drop down. Callahan is already a great #7 and Anisimov should be there next year. At worst, Grachev will slide down here.
#8 options: Maybe Werek
#9 options: Avery

I think that if we signed a real number two while allowing the younger guys to come up, we'll have a real strong offense to go with a homegrown D and Lundqvist. Our prospects will likely be able to fill out the secondary scoring needs. In today's game, you almost need another big gun. If we can land Kovi, that would be him.

Callahan Auto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 03:50 PM
  #88
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 View Post
Sorry to derail this, but

I hate the Ovechkin vs. Gretzky argument. People forget how good Gretzky really was. Let's not forget that Gretzky put up 72 points in 96-97 and 67 the following year when he was 36 & 37 years old. That was right in the early/middle of the dead puck era, with all the clutching and grabbing, 2 line pass, etc.

The way Gretzky saw the ice is unparalleled to anyone. He had so much skill just from his vision and ability to make plays that it was amazing.
Ovechkin plays with brute force and speed. You just hope that as his body starts to catch up to him that he can adjust his style.

Personally I think of Ovechkin as a player who peaks and drops hard unless he becomes like Jagr as he gets older. Whereas Crosby will be the player who will be good even when he's in his late 30s.
TGO is the most intelligent player I have ever seen. Want to talk Hockey IQ? On a scale from 1-100, I would give him a 100...and I would probably give him a higher score because he read, and reacted to plays before they ever even happened, he was like a chess player who played the game 50 moves ahead, while the rest of the players are playing 1 move ahead. I think that's why he made such a bad coach...most NHL players aren't very smart out there, they have tremendous skill sets, and are in tremendous physical shape, but they dont see the things that he sees, and he's trying to get his players to play in that cerebral kind of way that most players are just incapable of playing like. TGO would be a great coach in NJ, because Lou Lams loves signing smart players. I shudder to think how good Zach Parise could be with TGO mentoring him. Though, to be fair, Lemaire, is also one of the smartest hockey minds out there (as is Lou Lams)...so it's not like they have a deficiency there.

Inferno is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 04:02 PM
  #89
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 View Post
Sorry to derail this, but

I hate the Ovechkin vs. Gretzky argument. People forget how good Gretzky really was. Let's not forget that Gretzky put up 72 points in 96-97 and 67 the following year when he was 36 & 37 years old. That was right in the early/middle of the dead puck era, with all the clutching and grabbing, 2 line pass, etc.

The way Gretzky saw the ice is unparalleled to anyone. He had so much skill just from his vision and ability to make plays that it was amazing.
Ovechkin plays with brute force and speed. You just hope that as his body starts to catch up to him that he can adjust his style.

Personally I think of Ovechkin as a player who peaks and drops hard unless he becomes like Jagr as he gets older. Whereas Crosby will be the player who will be good even when he's in his late 30s.
Totally agree...TGO's ice vision was simply amazing. He would be the best player in the league during ANY era.

Ovi is a tremendous in the moment player...he can do things in an instant that no human being should be able to dream off...but...I really don't ever see him anticipating the way Gretzky did.

dtrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 05:23 PM
  #90
miss2leetch
Registered User
 
miss2leetch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 183
vCash: 500
I know this is a little off topic and late at that, but I would take Mike Richter over Henrik every day. Henrik is playing on weaker teams and has to do more. Mike Richter won a stanley cup and has his number retired. Until Henrik can do either you can't compare the two. I am sure to be in the minority but Mike Richter was the best Ranger goalie I have ever seen.

miss2leetch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 05:38 PM
  #91
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss2leetch View Post
I know this is a little off topic and late at that, but I would take Mike Richter over Henrik every day. Henrik is playing on weaker teams and has to do more. Mike Richter won a stanley cup and has his number retired. Until Henrik can do either you can't compare the two. I am sure to be in the minority but Mike Richter was the best Ranger goalie I have ever seen.
if youre comparing Richter as a whole, vs lundqvist as a whole, sure Richter is better. But Lundqvist will likely be the Rangers leader in just about every statistical category for a goalie by the time his career is over, will have his name up in the rafters, and science willing, will have his name etched on the goblet of stanley.

Inferno is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 06:55 PM
  #92
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
if youre comparing Richter as a whole, vs lundqvist as a whole, sure Richter is better. But Lundqvist will likely be the Rangers leader in just about every statistical category for a goalie by the time his career is over, will have his name up in the rafters, and science willing, will have his name etched on the goblet of stanley.
Science willing? o0ooook.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 06:59 PM
  #93
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 View Post
Sorry to derail this, but

I hate the Ovechkin vs. Gretzky argument. People forget how good Gretzky really was. Let's not forget that Gretzky put up 72 points in 96-97 and 67 the following year when he was 36 & 37 years old. That was right in the early/middle of the dead puck era, with all the clutching and grabbing, 2 line pass, etc.

The way Gretzky saw the ice is unparalleled to anyone. He had so much skill just from his vision and ability to make plays that it was amazing.
Ovechkin plays with brute force and speed. You just hope that as his body starts to catch up to him that he can adjust his style.

Personally I think of Ovechkin as a player who peaks and drops hard unless he becomes like Jagr as he gets older. Whereas Crosby will be the player who will be good even when he's in his late 30s.
TGO had 72 assists that year & 97 points

The following year he had 67 helpers & 90 points.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 07:17 PM
  #94
otto1219
Registered User
 
otto1219's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panfork View Post
No offense but that's a terrible judgment call. People seriously underestimate Richter because of his injury problem and short career, but I'd rank him up there with the top 5 goalies of all time. With Sawchuk, Brodeur (as much as I hate to admit it), and of course, the best goalie of all time in MY opinion, Patrick Roy.

As for the Callahan statements, I fully agree. Callahan should be a career Ranger. He's an amazing player with incredible heart and grit. After last night, what he's done for this team has just overwhelmed me and I think I can safely say he's probably my favourite player still playing in the NHL. (farewell Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr) Rangers should, and I'm pretty sure they intend to, keep Callahan for as long as they can, unless some kind of miraculous trade comes along (and I mean miraculous, Dustin Brown can suck it), or if he asks an absolutely outrageous price for himself. (I can't see Cally doing that to the team)

I dig Callahan, and I want him on the team forever.
I understand that as Ranger fans we overvalue our players especially our "franchise" players. But saying Richter was a top 5 goalie of all time is just ridiculous. He never had lower than a 2.57 GAA, a save percentage barely over .9 (.904) and had only 6 winning seasons out of 14 seasons (many incomplete). Part of being considered great is longevity and durability. Richter had neither. Within the next four years it is not crazy to say that Lundqvist is going to be the winningest goalie in Rangers franchise history.

In 93-94 he was unbelievable, but lets face it, he had two seasons of plus 30+ wins, and had played an unreal Olympics. Sadly his career was cut short, but to say he was a top 5 goalie of all time when he probably wasnt even a top 5 goalie in his era. Lundqvist is going to have five 30+ win seasons in his first 5 years. I understand that Richter didnt have the benefit of the shooutout, so his wins could have fluctuated a bit.



Stats: Mike Richter
1989-1990 NYR 23 22 12 5 5 -- 66 3.00 .904 0
1990-1991 NYR 45 42 21 13 7 -- 135 3.12 .903 0
1991-1992 NYR 41 39 23 12 2 -- 119 3.11 .901 3
1992-1993 NYR 38 36 13 19 3 -- 134 3.82 .886 1
1993-1994 NYR 68 67 42 12 6 -- 159 2.57 .910 5
1994-1995 NYR 35 35 14 17 2 -- 97 2.92 .890 2
1995-1996 NYR 41 40 24 13 3 -- 107 2.68 .912 3
1996-1997 NYR 61 61 33 22 6 -- 161 2.68 .917 4
1997-1998 NYR 72 69 21 31 15 -- 184 2.66 .903 0
1998-1999 NYR 68 66 27 30 8 -- 170 2.63 .910 4
1999-2000 NYR 61 60 22 31 8 -- 173 2.87 .905 0
2000-2001 NYR 45 45 20 21 3 -- 144 3.28 .893 0
2001-2002 NYR 55 54 24 26 4 -- 157 2.95 .906 2
2002-2003 NYR 13 12 5 6 1 -- 34 2.94 .897 0
666 648 301 258 73 0 1840 2.89 .904 24

otto1219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 08:21 PM
  #95
Panfork
Pacioretty Hater
 
Panfork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 View Post
Sorry to derail this, but

I hate the Ovechkin vs. Gretzky argument. People forget how good Gretzky really was. Let's not forget that Gretzky put up 72 points in 96-97 and 67 the following year when he was 36 & 37 years old. That was right in the early/middle of the dead puck era, with all the clutching and grabbing, 2 line pass, etc.

The way Gretzky saw the ice is unparalleled to anyone. He had so much skill just from his vision and ability to make plays that it was amazing.
Ovechkin plays with brute force and speed. You just hope that as his body starts to catch up to him that he can adjust his style.

Personally I think of Ovechkin as a player who peaks and drops hard unless he becomes like Jagr as he gets older. Whereas Crosby will be the player who will be good even when he's in his late 30s.
I understand your argument completely, believe me I do, but you can't just say Gretzky would be as good a player as Ovy or Crosby in this day in age. The game changes, and I don't think Gretzky would be anything close to the guy he was if he was suddenly 27 again. His vision will still be there, but I just don't think his skill set would work the same way it did in the 80s and 90s.

Granted he'd still be a RIDICULOUS player, he wouldn't be on top of the world.

Panfork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2010, 08:37 PM
  #96
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panfork View Post
I understand your argument completely, believe me I do, but you can't just say Gretzky would be as good a player as Ovy or Crosby in this day in age. The game changes, and I don't think Gretzky would be anything close to the guy he was if he was suddenly 27 again. His vision will still be there, but I just don't think his skill set would work the same way it did in the 80s and 90s.

Granted he'd still be a RIDICULOUS player, he wouldn't be on top of the world.
One thing about TGO was that he never got hit & was able to skate though or avoid the heavy clutching & grabing. I think the "new" NHL would benifit him & he would be just as good now as was than.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2010, 01:59 PM
  #97
Nemchinov13
Registered User
 
Nemchinov13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Gravesend
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thomas J. View Post
Science willing? o0ooook.
South Park Cartman time travelling reference.

whoever said that Crosby is going to be a better player late in his career than Ovy is probably right, as much as I abhor Crosby and admire Ovy.

To stay on topic...

I've always thought that Callahan is modern day's version of Gravy. Granted, that Ryan will probably never score 50 or even 30, but he is a heart and soul player that Gravy was. Nobody ever thought that Gravy would be a perennial 25-30g, 50+ point a season player, and I've never thought that Cally would ever be able to score 20 goals. Then again, Ryan is only 24? He might just develop into a more finesse Graves. And IMO, players like them are to stay with the team until they ride into the sunset with their numbers retired. Ryan is a building block as much as Staal and Hank and what Gravy was.

Nemchinov13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2010, 04:17 PM
  #98
Tumsh
Registered User
 
Tumsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,233
vCash: 500
The thing with Callahan, is that as long as there is mutual loyalty between him and the organization, he will always be a good value player. That is, he will be in the high end of the play/cap hit spectrum when compared to the rest of the league. Even if he doesn't pan out to be a 50-60 point guy with 25-30 goals, it's okay, because whatever numbers he puts up and whatever salary he gets, he will give you more than you paid for.

Tumsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2010, 04:33 PM
  #99
we want cup
We do not Sow
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 10,648
vCash: 500
We should give him a long contract extension next time he's up for one. I don't want to risk losing him. Ever.

we want cup 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 01:17 PM.

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.