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've said it beofre and I'll say it again

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2004, 08:58 PM
  #1
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,615
vCash: 500
I've said it beofre and I'll say it again

Lundqvist is going to be the #1 goalie of the future for the Rangers.

I truly like Blackburn, but this kid Lundqvist is special. After posting a GAA of less than 2 last year while playing in the SEL at just 21 years old I had a feeling this kid was going to be a special player.

If Lundqvist continues to play this well and Blackburn heals enough from now until December, they are going to be the 1-2 punch for this team until one takes over as the clear cut #1 guy in Nets.

I honestly believe that that will be Lundqvist

pld459666 is offline  
Old
05-03-2004, 09:03 PM
  #2
Firefly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mohawk Valley
Country: Poland
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Firefly Send a message via Skype™ to Firefly
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
Lundqvist is going to be the #1 goalie of the future for the Rangers.

I truly like Blackburn, but this kid Lundqvist is special. After posting a GAA of less than 2 last year while playing in the SEL at just 21 years old I had a feeling this kid was going to be a special player.

If Lundqvist continues to play this well and Blackburn heals enough from now until December, they are going to be the 1-2 punch for this team until one takes over as the clear cut #1 guy in Nets.

I honestly believe that that will be Lundqvist
i just asked about this in the lundqvist shutout thread. one will definitely have to pack his bags in the future. there cant be two franchise-potential goalies forever. and what about Labarbera.

Blackburn: needs to get his game and skills back in the AHL...agreed?
Lundqvist: said himself that hed like to play in the AHL next.
Labarbera: "wtf? where do i go?"

who do you all see as the #1 guy of the future?

Firefly is offline  
Old
05-03-2004, 09:27 PM
  #3
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blu3shirt
i just asked about this in the lundqvist shutout thread. one will definitely have to pack his bags in the future. there cant be two franchise-potential goalies forever. and what about Labarbera.

Blackburn: needs to get his game and skills back in the AHL...agreed?
Lundqvist: said himself that hed like to play in the AHL next.
Labarbera: "wtf? where do i go?"

who do you all see as the #1 guy of the future?
first off this is a GREAT problem to have and something that shouldn't even be given a 2nd thought at this point...

either lundqvist or blackburn will be the #1 goalie in the future and after 1 of them has won the #1 job and secured that position, the other could get moved. but there is no reason to rush into moving either just for the sake of moving one...let them work in the system together and they will push each other to be better...they will both still have great trade value in 2 years...

as for labarbera, i think he'll be traded this summer at the draft...he has been unbelievable this year but he isn't a future #1 and they need to clear the spot out for blackburn/lundqvist

NYR469 is offline  
Old
05-03-2004, 09:36 PM
  #4
charliemurphy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Concrete Jungle, NYC
Posts: 772
vCash: 500
IMO...
I wouldn't be shocked if Lundqvuist/Blackburn start out in Hartford together.
Lundqvuist will start for the Rangers well before Blackburn does.
I would love to see a duo of Lundqvuist/Blackburn in two years for the Rangers.
I can definitely see Lundqvuist starting for the Rangers. Maybe towards the end of the season.
Maybe after they deal with Dunham , Mclennan, Valiquette, oh yeah and LaBarbera.
I guess we should start a discussion about what we can get and who should or will stay for at least next year?
Is Labarbera an NHL goalie?

charliemurphy is offline  
Old
05-03-2004, 09:56 PM
  #5
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Is this going to be Richter/Vanbiesbrook(sp) all over again. Two quality young golaies will only make each player better, having to outperform the other one. This is a great luxury and a no lose situation for the Ranger organization. Hopefully we can be smart and trade one away for a couple of good prospects when one of them has moved to the forefront.

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
05-03-2004, 10:00 PM
  #6
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469
first off this is a GREAT problem to have and something that shouldn't even be given a 2nd thought at this point...

either lundqvist or blackburn will be the #1 goalie in the future and after 1 of them has won the #1 job and secured that position, the other could get moved. but there is no reason to rush into moving either just for the sake of moving one...let them work in the system together and they will push each other to be better...they will both still have great trade value in 2 years...

as for labarbera, i think he'll be traded this summer at the draft...he has been unbelievable this year but he isn't a future #1 and they need to clear the spot out for blackburn/lundqvist
I like having two $1 goalies. Remember Eddie Giacoman and Gilles Villemure.

free0717 is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 08:23 AM
  #7
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Somehow neither the Sharks nor the Sabres seem to suffer from having more than one "franchise" goalie.

True Blue is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 10:36 AM
  #8
RANGERDIEHARD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
Lundqvist is going to be the #1 goalie of the future for the Rangers.

I truly like Blackburn, but this kid Lundqvist is special. After posting a GAA of less than 2 last year while playing in the SEL at just 21 years old I had a feeling this kid was going to be a special player.

If Lundqvist continues to play this well and Blackburn heals enough from now until December, they are going to be the 1-2 punch for this team until one takes over as the clear cut #1 guy in Nets.

I honestly believe that that will be Lundqvist
You don't have to convince me, I've thought this for a while now. Take nothing away from Blackie but Lundqvuist has proven himself against Pro's already.

RANGERDIEHARD is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 01:33 PM
  #9
charliemurphy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Concrete Jungle, NYC
Posts: 772
vCash: 500
Lundqvuist is definitely something for Ranger fans to get excited about, as well as Balej (obviously), Prucha, Kondratiev, and Immonen.

charliemurphy is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 01:58 PM
  #10
Blueshirt13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Other side of the Ri
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
In Hartford, Labarbera has an MVP year and the minor league equivelant to the Vezina would be his... His thank you for it, traded for a draft pick or prospect.

From the games I went to, Labarbera has good positioning but just very slow reflexes. He benefits from solid D taking away quality shots and leaving only outside, bad angle shots. Don't get me wrong, he has made some nice saves here and there but I don't see him as an NHL starter.

Blueshirt13 is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 02:25 PM
  #11
Potter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bridgewater NJ
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt13
In Hartford, Labarbera has an MVP year and the minor league equivelant to the Vezina would be his... His thank you for it, traded for a draft pick or prospect.

From the games I went to, Labarbera has good positioning but just very slow reflexes. He benefits from solid D taking away quality shots and leaving only outside, bad angle shots. Don't get me wrong, he has made some nice saves here and there but I don't see him as an NHL starter.
This is exactly what the Rangers should do. First try and get rid of Dunham. If they can't, which is most likely the situation I'll assume it. Next year we should go into camp with Dunham/Knabi/Cloutier as the number 1. Blackburn and Lundquist should get time all through camp but by the end both should be in Hartford splitting time pretty much evenly. The big fight goaltending-wise in the big club should be for the backup. Let Labarbera, Mclennen, Valiquette, and god knows who else fight it out for the backup. Whoever doesn't make it should be either traded or cut. It's a business unfortunetly and it can't always be perfect.

Now I say Dunham/Knabi/Cloutier because I really feel we should take a run at Knabi or Clouts is they are available. We have a REALLY young team here and if they have great goaltending behind them it will boost their confidence, and subsequently, their play. Confidence is key for a young team and Brooks actually made a good point in one of his articles about that. Giving these guys a front loaded 3 year deal with a 1 year club option at the end is not a bad idea. Hear me out. I just dont think Dunham can provide that for a team and if this team plays like the penquins last year, I think it will hurt development before it helps it. These kids must be groomed in a winning environment, something that has been lacking in the garden for years.

The first year, the #1 (dont know who it is yet, we'll just call him #1) plays about 70 games next season. The backup (whoever that is, i would guess Mclennen) plays the rest and will sub in for #1 if he gets hurt. Blacky and Lundy are down splitting time in Hartford 50-50. Should #1 get hurt, backup plays, one of Lundy or Blacky comes up as a BACKUP and gets a start here and there.

The next year, the #1 is still the number 1. Let Blacky and Lundy fight it out for the backup in New York. The one who wins should get 20-25 games so he doesn't get rusty. The other is the #1 in Hartford. Should the backup (at this point Lundy or Blacky) play poorly, he will be sent to Hartford to work on his game, the other comes up. The key point for this year is too make sure the back up in new york doesnt get rusty. If that looks like its going to be the case we should get some vetern backup off the scrap heap to back us up and let Lundy and Blacky split time in Hartford. Let them develope some chemistry.

The third year, ideally the #1 would play about 50 games and whoever is the young backup this point (whoever wins the spot out of camp) plays the other 30, ala Minnesota. At the end of the year we play the hothand come playoff time and then in the offseason split ways with #1.

If both Lundy and Blackburn stink well we still have a Knabibulin to support the young kids and we can keep him for a 4th season. I say we front load the contract for salary cap purposes. The third year we don't want to play a guy who plays 50% of the games top end starting goalie money. This will give Blacky and Lundy 3 years of no pressure developement time. Worst case scenario neither of them pan out and we need to sign a goalie in 4 years. Best case scenario we have two franchise goal tenders splitting time and at one point we can use one of them in a trade to upgrade another part of the team. How can you disagree with that?

Potter is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 02:57 PM
  #12
charliemurphy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Concrete Jungle, NYC
Posts: 772
vCash: 500
Knabi? As in the "BHULIN WALL", Do you mean the goalie for Tampa Bay? That is exactly who the Rangers should not sign.
Dunham and his contract are not going anywhere. If he is traded he would be packaged, which would be another story.
Do you think next season will be a winning environment? It might be just a little bit prettier than this past season, but not much prettier.
I think your jumping the gun on this rebuild.
Are you saying that you think Lundqvuist and Blackburn will take 3 years to develop?
I wouldn't be shocked if Lundqvuist is starting with the Rangers by the end of next season. I don't even think Blackburn will take 3 years to rehab and further develop. Granted he will take more time than Lundqvuist IMO...but not 3 years.
And how young do you think this team will be?
I'm pretty sure that Sather will have some say in that. There is no way Sather lets a team full of young prospects go out onto on the ice. That would be a huge mistake and can do more harm than good. Sather will bring in some guys and I hope to hell it's not an expensive FA Goalie.
"What if Lundqvuist and Blackburn stink"? What are you saying?
Sorry, but I must disagree.

charliemurphy is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 06:14 PM
  #13
dumpsathernow*
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliemurphy
Knabi? As in the "BHULIN WALL", Do you mean the goalie for Tampa Bay? That is exactly who the Rangers should not sign.
Dunham and his contract are not going anywhere. If he is traded he would be packaged, which would be another story.
Do you think next season will be a winning environment? It might be just a little bit prettier than this past season, but not much prettier.
I think your jumping the gun on this rebuild.
Are you saying that you think Lundqvuist and Blackburn will take 3 years to develop?
I wouldn't be shocked if Lundqvuist is starting with the Rangers by the end of next season. I don't even think Blackburn will take 3 years to rehab and further develop. Granted he will take more time than Lundqvuist IMO...but not 3 years.
And how young do you think this team will be?
I'm pretty sure that Sather will have some say in that. There is no way Sather lets a team full of young prospects go out onto on the ice. That would be a huge mistake and can do more harm than good. Sather will bring in some guys and I hope to hell it's not an expensive FA Goalie.
"What if Lundqvuist and Blackburn stink"? What are you saying?
Sorry, but I must disagree.
just want to ask one thing to all u people im not very aol smart what in the hell does IMO mean?? someone help me with this

dumpsathernow* is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 06:23 PM
  #14
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay 'n skeeta
just want to ask one thing to all u people im not very aol smart what in the hell does IMO mean?? someone help me with this
That would be I(n) M(y) O(pinion).

jas is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 06:24 PM
  #15
dumpsathernow*
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
That would be I(n) M(y) O(pinion).
cool man, grassy @ss ( gracias )

dumpsathernow* is offline  
Old
05-04-2004, 06:40 PM
  #16
Broadway Brett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Florida, but born in
Country: United States
Posts: 2,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay 'n skeeta
cool man, grassy @ss ( gracias )
Ur a Funny SOB lol

Broadway Brett is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 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.