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

A trade in the works?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-21-2004, 02:34 PM
  #126
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
I have to agree with Pittengineer . . . the pick (#2) could be had in theory but there is a huge difference between that pick and numbers 3, 4, 5 (there is not even close to a consensus on number 3, with any of 4, 5 or 6 players capable of going there) . . . Think close to AO type trade as Malkin has been said to be closing that gap, coming on quite a bit this year, so especially with Pittsburgh having a glaring weakness of a lack of a play making center, they would have to be blown away with an offer. The offers that I have seen here do not blow me away personally, and I doubt that they would the Pens.
So you wouldn't take the # 6 & #7 for #2?

I doubt any trades happen either, but i can see some scenarios that could work for both teams. You just never know.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-21-2004, 02:41 PM
  #127
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
So you wouldn't take the # 6 & #7 for #2?

I doubt any trades happen either, but i can see some scenarios that could work for both teams. You just never know.

In this draft? . . . no, I personally would not . . . this is one of the weaker drafts in quite a few years (especially after about pick 15, from what I read the picks are the equivilent of mid seconds last year). there is some quality from #3 - 5, then a bit less from 6 - 15, but the consenus drop off is after 5, so 6 & 7 may as well be 14 & 15 to me, and in this year it is not enough to trade a player that has been projected as high as Malkin has of late.

Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
05-21-2004, 04:42 PM
  #128
pittengineer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
So you wouldn't take the # 6 & #7 for #2?

I doubt any trades happen either, but i can see some scenarios that could work for both teams. You just never know.
If this was last year, I def. would have considered it(even though im glad they traded up for our franchise goalie). This draft is relatively weak(compared to other drafts) after the top 5, some would argue top 2. The thing working against a trade for #2 is that Malkin(considered the def #2 in the draft) is the bluechip center that lacks in the pens system. I think if the situation was a little bit different, the pens would consider to trade down. But I think with Malkin being the BPA, the def #2, and the position the pens system lacks, the pens will stay at #2 unless a stellar deal comes through that includes a bluechip young player coming back.

pittengineer is offline  
Old
05-21-2004, 05:03 PM
  #129
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
In this draft? . . . no, I personally would not . . . this is one of the weaker drafts in quite a few years (especially after about pick 15, from what I read the picks are the equivilent of mid seconds last year).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittengineer
If this was last year, I def. would have considered it(even though im glad they traded up for our franchise goalie). This draft is relatively weak(compared to other drafts) after the top 5, some would argue top 2.
MYTH !

Yeah, it is apparent to alot of people that this draft has only 2 bluechip prospects. Thats it. No more, after that they're all mid seconds like Jaded has pointed us to. You mean like Patrice Bergeron was last year right? Or in 1996 when they said it could be one of the worst drafts ever - well they were right about the first round, but take a look at the 2-9th rounds in that draft.

To people who know the draft it's all about Edge's favorite line - do your homework.
There are some very good players in this draft, some are still boys, not men. The opposite is usually true in drafts considered to have quality depth, like in 1999. Look where alot of those guys are now.

Ok, Pitt won't deal their pick, thats fine with me, just don't believe the hype when it comes to value in this draft. It's ignorant to summize a draft before it even takes place.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-21-2004, 05:15 PM
  #130
pittengineer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
MYTH !

Yeah, it is apparent to alot of people that this draft has only 2 bluechip prospects. Thats it. No more, after that they're all mid seconds like Jaded has pointed us to. You mean like Patrice Bergeron was last year right? Or in 1996 when they said it could be one of the worst drafts ever - well they were right about the first round, but take a look at the 2-9th rounds in that draft.

To people who know the draft it's all about Edge's favorite line - do your homework.
There are some very good players in this draft, some are still boys, not men. The opposite is usually true in drafts considered to have quality depth, like in 1999. Look where alot of those guys are now.

Ok, Pitt won't deal their pick, thats fine with me, just don't believe the hype when it comes to value in this draft. It's ignorant to summize a draft before it even takes place.
I dont think we are saying there is not good players still available, just that #1 and #2 are slam dunks. They are gimme picks.

pittengineer is offline  
Old
05-21-2004, 05:30 PM
  #131
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseydevil
Yes..because most people with lots of inside info like to go to HFBOARDS and give that inside info to little kids on a chat room..
You are doing all three posters - EDGE, PARK#2 and SOTI - a disservice by showing such disrespect. All three people have provided us with information that we would not have gotten anywhere else. Do I have any proof? No, but all three posters have earned the respect of posters here. I never once stated they were people connected to anyone, only that they have access to information most of us are not privy to. As for the "little kids" comment, speak for yourself.

jas is offline  
Old
05-21-2004, 07:36 PM
  #132
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 jas
You are doing all three posters - EDGE, PARK#2 and SOTI - a disservice by showing such disrespect. All three people have provided us with information that we would not have gotten anywhere else. Do I have any proof? No, but all three posters have earned the respect of posters here. I never once stated they were people connected to anyone, only that they have access to information most of us are not privy to. As for the "little kids" comment, speak for yourself.
Right on!

Broadway Brett is offline  
Old
05-21-2004, 08:23 PM
  #133
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
MYTH !
Agreed. What are those people trying to tell us, that there are only 2 or 3 players who are going to play on the top 2 lines in the NHL? That there are only 2 defensemen that will make it? The '03 draft was an exceptionally deep draft, where 1st round talent was still found in the 2nd round. Therefore saying that most of the mid first-rounders from this year would be 2nd rounders from last year, is not saying much at all. For all of the "weak" drafts that have occured, somehow players from those drafts still become top 2 line players and top pairing defensemen.
As our battle cry seems to be, "Just do your homework".

True Blue is offline  
Old
05-21-2004, 08:53 PM
  #134
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 True Blue
Agreed. What are those people trying to tell us, that there are only 2 or 3 players who are going to play on the top 2 lines in the NHL? That there are only 2 defensemen that will make it? The '03 draft was an exceptionally deep draft, where 1st round talent was still found in the 2nd round. Therefore saying that most of the mid first-rounders from this year would be 2nd rounders from last year, is not saying much at all. For all of the "weak" drafts that have occured, somehow players from those drafts still become top 2 line players and top pairing defensemen.
As our battle cry seems to be, "Just do your homework".
I think that this year's top 30 talents, is just a notch below last years. This year, the draft isn't as deep, but in the top 30, their is so much talent, but the talent hasn't proven itself yet (I.E. Wes O'Neil, Radislav Olesz , Lauri Tukonen, ETC.).

Broadway Brett is offline  
Old
05-21-2004, 10:11 PM
  #135
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadway Crosby
I think that this year's top 30 talents, is just a notch below last years. This year, the draft isn't as deep, but in the top 30, their is so much talent, but the talent hasn't proven itself yet (I.E. Wes O'Neil, Radislav Olesz , Lauri Tukonen, ETC.).

Plus alot of good talent in Europe is being overlooked as just 2nd rate - Kaspar, Alexandrov, Voloshenko, Fransson, Hedman, Soderberg, Valant, Korpikoski, Nokelainen, Tuomainen, Vomela, Plyuschev, Gracik, ****ikov - all very skilled players.

And North America - Zajac, Wheeler, Chucko, Weller, Sawada, Yandle, RJ Anderson, Klubertanz, Oreskovich....players who have only played against average competition, so they get rated low. But these guys will be attending schools like Minnesota, North Dakota, Clarkson, Cornell, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Notre Dame - major college programs. These are the kind of players Slats and co have picked nicely in the later rounds the last few years.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-22-2004, 06:27 AM
  #136
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 Bluenote13
Plus alot of good talent in Europe is being overlooked as just 2nd rate - Kaspar, Alexandrov, Voloshenko, Fransson, Hedman, Soderberg, Valant, Korpikoski, Nokelainen, Tuomainen, Vomela, Plyuschev, Gracik, ****ikov - all very skilled players.

And North America - Zajac, Wheeler, Chucko, Weller, Sawada, Yandle, RJ Anderson, Klubertanz, Oreskovich....players who have only played against average competition, so they get rated low. But these guys will be attending schools like Minnesota, North Dakota, Clarkson, Cornell, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Notre Dame - major college programs. These are the kind of players Slats and co have picked nicely in the later rounds the last few years.
I couldn't have gone on forever, could I? But you just prove my point more.

Broadway Brett is offline  
Old
05-22-2004, 08:03 AM
  #137
bmoak
Registered User
 
bmoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,620
vCash: 500
But if that's your argument, that there are somany good players in this draft, would you be willing to have the Rangers trade down out of the top 10 or even the top 20 if another team comes a-knockin' for the #6?

bmoak is offline  
Old
05-22-2004, 08:17 AM
  #138
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 bmoak
But if that's your argument, that there are somany good players in this draft, would you be willing to have the Rangers trade down out of the top 10 or even the top 20 if another team comes a-knockin' for the #6?
No, because the talent at #6 is higher than at #20. And, we already have more than enough picks for one draft, we don't need a mid-level prospect, or another pick. At #6 we could still get a definite Grade A talent, where a little lower, you may not be ablt to get that. Also, the talent higher up in this draft is more polished, which in turn means they are more of a sure-fire prospect, which we need. We would not be able to get an Olesz, Radulov, Thelen, or any player at that type of level. Point is, we get an even better talent at #6, and we get a more sure-fire prospect their, as well.

Broadway Brett is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 11:11 AM
  #139
Potted Plant
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potted Plant
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmoak
But if that's your argument, that there are somany good players in this draft, would you be willing to have the Rangers trade down out of the top 10 or even the top 20 if another team comes a-knockin' for the #6?
I would, if the right deal came along. Let's say that Edmonton offered us their two first rounders, a 3rd rounder, and a 5th rounder for the #6, and Olesz was not available, I would take it. If Olesz is not available, I'd probably still take it.

I know I'm not one of the most frequent posters on here, but just about every post I make contains some variation on the theme of "the purpose of the draft is to maximize your assets. You can do this by either staying where you are, moving up, or moving down. We should be open to doing all three." We should do whatever maximizes the assets. That could, in a draft (mis)perceived as being top-heavy, mean that we should move down and pick up more undervalued picks.

Potted Plant is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 11:41 AM
  #140
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,703
vCash: 500
if the rangers could some how walk away from the draft with two top eight picks i don't really care if they give up every second round pick. the top ten of the draft is that good and the drop off is that bad.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 06:41 PM
  #141
charliemurphy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Concrete Jungle, NYC
Posts: 693
vCash: 500
I agree.
I think the Rangers will stay at #6 and move up into the teens.

charliemurphy is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 07:07 PM
  #142
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
This year's draft is extremely important for Rangers' future, we must pick the right prospects and at the same time stay away from picks that are too risky and picks that are too safe..

I would trade Lundmark for Rita and a 4th round pick

Trade Poti to Carolina for #38 pick

Maybe even trade Rachunek, Josh Green, Lacouture, Purinton, Labarbera, or Dunham if anybody is interested and would give fair value in return.

Then use the 2 late 2nd rounders to get another late 1st rounder; and use Toronto's pick and another late 2nd rounder to move up into mid teens.

that would give us 3 1st rounders and 3 early consecutive 2nd rounders.

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 08:19 PM
  #143
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 Prucha73
This year's draft is extremely important for Rangers' future, we must pick the right prospects and at the same time stay away from picks that are too risky and picks that are too safe..

I would trade Lundmark for Rita and a 4th round pick

Trade Poti to Carolina for #38 pick

Maybe even trade Rachunek, Josh Green, Lacouture, Purinton, Labarbera, or Dunham if anybody is interested and would give fair value in return.

Then use the 2 late 2nd rounders to get another late 1st rounder; and use Toronto's pick and another late 2nd rounder to move up into mid teens.

that would give us 3 1st rounders and 3 early consecutive 2nd rounders.
I feel like I just did this:

But, I would like to do that, but Sather is to stupid for logic, everyone knows that.

Broadway Brett is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 09:11 PM
  #144
Potted Plant
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potted Plant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
if the rangers could some how walk away from the draft with two top eight picks i don't really care if they give up every second round pick. the top ten of the draft is that good and the drop off is that bad.
I just don't believe that's true. We've seen other "thin" drafts that turned out to be just as deep as supposedly stronger drafts. I'm convinced that most drafts are pretty much equivalant overall. Maybe there's a few more or a fewer prospects at the very top of the talent curve, but overall it's mostly about the same. There will be NHL players available in the 2nd round. We just have to find them. To sell out everything we have for another shot in the top 10 is, IMO, foolishness. We have a realistic chance at getting 4 or 5 NHL players in this draft. We shouldn't blow it.

Potted Plant is offline  
Old
05-23-2004, 11:40 PM
  #145
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlyRegardedRookie
I just don't believe that's true. We've seen other "thin" drafts that turned out to be just as deep as supposedly stronger drafts. I'm convinced that most drafts are pretty much equivalant overall. Maybe there's a few more or a fewer prospects at the very top of the talent curve, but overall it's mostly about the same. There will be NHL players available in the 2nd round. We just have to find them. To sell out everything we have for another shot in the top 10 is, IMO, foolishness. We have a realistic chance at getting 4 or 5 NHL players in this draft. We shouldn't blow it.
Most drafts produce the same, some just seem to be shinier at first than others. Having said that, if getting the players you want means trading to move up, than you do it. If you can get him by trading down and getting an extra pick, you do that then. There's no right or wrong answer.

As for a dropoff, the big dropoff is in the polish some of these kids. They are a little harder to judge but I would venture to say that when all is said and done this draft will likely product as much as last years.

7 years ago EVERYONE swore the 97 draft was gonna be huge, many people felt 99 was going to be huge. Everyone swore 2000 was a let down year but look at some kids it produced.

I dont think this is a weak year, just one that requires looking beyond stats, sometimes beyond skills and often between the lines.

Edge is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 06:12 AM
  #146
Potted Plant
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potted Plant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Most drafts produce the same, some just seem to be shinier at first than others. Having said that, if getting the players you want means trading to move up, than you do it. If you can get him by trading down and getting an extra pick, you do that then. There's no right or wrong answer.
Oh, I don't deny that you have to find the people you want and target them. But if we go into the draft thinking that Radislav Smid, for example, is the fifth best player in the draft, we would be foolish not to move down, as he will certainly be available in the early teens. It just irks me to see all these people thinking "Top Ten or Bust" and completely disregarding the value of 2nd round picks and the #25 pick except as trade-bait. I think it's the same sort of thinking that got us into signing all those high-priced free agents, just transfered to the draft now. People are getting suckered into the glitz and glamour of higher picks and ignoring the nuts and bolts of a draft.

Potted Plant is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 08:42 AM
  #147
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadway Crosby
I feel like I just did this:

But, I would like to do that, but Sather is to stupid for logic, everyone knows that.
There's a little more to it than just logic and what Sather would or would not do.

"Trade Poti to Carolina for #38 pick"

Where is the logic here? Why on Earth would Carolina make this trade? People have got to stop including Poti in every possible trade. I understand that people want him gone, but wanting and reality are 2 different things. NO team is going to surrender a 1st or 2nd round pick for him. Given his atrocious play and salary, Poti is close to untradeable.

"Maybe even trade Rachunek, Josh Green, Lacouture, Purinton, Labarbera, or Dunham if anybody is interested and would give fair value in return."

Sather just traded for Rachunek. Does anyone out there really think that he is going to turn around and ship him right out? Dunham is pretty much untradeable right now. And players like Josh Green, Lacouture, Purinton, Labarbera have as much trade value as a waiver pick. What is a fair return for any one of them? A new hockey stick? A puck?

"Then use the 2 late 2nd rounders to get another late 1st rounder;"

With the well-documented drop-off in talent (or polish or whatever you want to call it), why would a team trade away it's first rounder in return for 2 LATE 2nd rounders? Just does not make sense.

"and use Toronto's pick and another late 2nd rounder to move up into mid teens."

Again, the 25th pick and another late 2nd rounder is not going to get you to move up 10 spots (15th is mid-teens).

Not only do these trades have to make sense for the Rangers, they have to make sense for other teams as well.

True Blue is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 09:48 AM
  #148
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Blue Jacket's Curse
 
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittengineer
If Olesz is there at #6, I think the rangers would def take him over any other prospect still available. I think they will also heavily look at Tukonen and Radulov, as I think those two will be the more realistic BPA at #6. Olesz most likely goes #3, but i believe the furthest he falls is #4.
I can almost guarantee that Columbus will not take Olesz. If Chicago passes on him, CBJ will either trade out or pass on Olesz and pick Ladd or Tukonen.
With Malhotra and Svitov in the system, they aren't looking for a 2nd/3rd line two-way guy.

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 10:11 AM
  #149
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Blue Jacket's Curse
 
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12,341
vCash: 500
I think the Rangers and CBJ match up extremely well for a potential swap of picks.

But, any trade that involves Columbus flat out giving up the 4th would be a tough one to swallow for me. IF you take the the presumption of the Toronto pick, a second rounder and two players -- one of those two players would have to be Tjutin, in my opinion.

Doug MacLean has repeatedly said that he wants "young, NHL-ready players." Columbus needs young d-men. If CBJ can't address it with Barker, I can only assume they'd want to address it through trade. Tjutin, to me, is the only player that makes sense. Poti doesn't -- too much money and CBJ have almost all puck-moving, offensive types already.
But, I will say that MacLean has talked up the Leetch trade and the two prospects NYR got in that deal before -- maybe it could be one of those guys?

As to Lundmark, MacLean recently said he was looking for a Svitov-like deal. Does this mean he might acquire a recent high pick who hasn't quite lived up to his billing?

Another note: MacLean allegedly was interested in Rachunek at the deadline. There is another name for the rumor mill.

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 10:37 AM
  #150
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
I think the Rangers and CBJ match up extremely well for a potential swap of picks.

But, any trade that involves Columbus flat out giving up the 4th would be a tough one to swallow for me. IF you take the the presumption of the Toronto pick, a second rounder and two players -- one of those two players would have to be Tjutin, in my opinion.

Doug MacLean has repeatedly said that he wants "young, NHL-ready players." Columbus needs young d-men. If CBJ can't address it with Barker, I can only assume they'd want to address it through trade. Tjutin, to me, is the only player that makes sense. Poti doesn't -- too much money and CBJ have almost all puck-moving, offensive types already.
But, I will say that MacLean has talked up the Leetch trade and the two prospects NYR got in that deal before -- maybe it could be one of those guys?

As to Lundmark, MacLean recently said he was looking for a Svitov-like deal. Does this mean he might acquire a recent high pick who hasn't quite lived up to his billing?

Another note: MacLean allegedly was interested in Rachunek at the deadline. There is another name for the rumor mill.
Umberger. If the Rangers sign RJ, they could then package him to Columbus, who are not all too unfamiliar to RJ, he did play for Ohio State.

Bluenote13 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 08:54 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.