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

Tukonen

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-09-2004, 10:02 AM
  #1
rangerz68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6
vCash: 500
Tukonen

Do you guys think Tukonen will be on the board for the rangers at #6? I personally think he's the real deal. At 6'2 200 lbs, he can become an elite powerfoward. He also has great speed and works his butt off. I think he has the edge over olesz and ladd. Thoughts??

rangerz68 is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 10:12 AM
  #2
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
I agree ...He'll be a great one ...but I don't think he'll be around at #6

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 10:35 AM
  #3
Blueshirt13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Other side of the Ri
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightthepower
This would be my choice. Top Finn prospects are usually pretty safe. They are tought to be 2 way players. I pray he falls to us. However, my first choice would be to trade perhaps Rachunek and Lundmark and our 6 to Pitt for their 2nd. I only could hope Pitt would be that stupid.
What if Pittsburgh wanted the 24th, an early second, Balej, another young minor leaguer and Lundmark for the 2nd, would you take it? In a year like this, to get a top 10 pick, especially with Pittsburgh, you HAVE to give up a talented prospect (Balej) and more.

Blueshirt13 is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 11:36 AM
  #4
rangerz68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6
vCash: 500
That would be a great deal(if we can get pitts 2nd overall pick). Then we have 2 picks in the top 6 in a draft which isn't very deep. The price for that pick would be steep, so this seems like a good deal for the rangers.

rangerz68 is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 11:39 AM
  #5
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt13
What if Pittsburgh wanted the 24th, an early second, Balej, another young minor leaguer and Lundmark for the 2nd, would you take it? In a year like this, to get a top 10 pick, especially with Pittsburgh, you HAVE to give up a talented prospect (Balej) and more.
No friggin' way. For an organization that is so low on depth, to trade away BOTH Balej and Lundmark, AND yet another prospect, AND a 1st rounder, AND a 2nd rounder is the definition of insanity. 3 prospects, a 1st & 2nd rounder is WAY too much. Maybe not to another organization, but the Rangers cannot afford to unload the farm for the #2 pick.

True Blue is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 11:41 AM
  #6
Blueshirt13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Other side of the Ri
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No friggin' way. For an organization that is so low on depth, to trade away BOTH Balej and Lundmark, AND yet another prospect, AND a 1st rounder, AND a 2nd rounder is the definition of insanity. 3 prospects, a 1st & 2nd rounder is WAY too much. Maybe not to another organization, but the Rangers cannot afford to unload the farm for the #2 pick.
I agree completely with you TB. But with everything that has been written on Malkin and this year's draft crop, I have the gut feeling that it will be a very high asking price for the #2 pick.

Blueshirt13 is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 11:48 AM
  #7
Potted Plant
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potted Plant
IMO, the value in this draft is in the lower picks, outside of the top 10 or outside of the first round. These picks may be in little demand and may have many potential sellers. However, I think that there are good prospects available there if you do your homework. That's why I want to ask about Minnesota's pick at #12. They may be interested in selling at a good price.

Potted Plant is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 11:57 AM
  #8
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No friggin' way. For an organization that is so low on depth, to trade away BOTH Balej and Lundmark, AND yet another prospect, AND a 1st rounder, AND a 2nd rounder is the definition of insanity. 3 prospects, a 1st & 2nd rounder is WAY too much. Maybe not to another organization, but the Rangers cannot afford to unload the farm for the #2 pick.
i agree it's too much (mostly because of Balej AND the other prospect) but don't agree we're low in depth however a trade that big would do some damage in that dept.


Balej is for real, he's shown that much, he has good good good value, not trading him with loads of goodies in one package, he is safe and good

in the hall is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 02:49 PM
  #9
rangerz68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No friggin' way. For an organization that is so low on depth, to trade away BOTH Balej and Lundmark, AND yet another prospect, AND a 1st rounder, AND a 2nd rounder is the definition of insanity. 3 prospects, a 1st & 2nd rounder is WAY too much. Maybe not to another organization, but the Rangers cannot afford to unload the farm for the #2 pick.
Yes this is a steep price. But Malkin is gonna be a top-line center, something we have lacked in how many years. They aren't going to have too many opportunities to acquire a big center with that much skill. Balej is good but in all likelyhood will not be a top line winger in the NHL. He will be a second liner at best. The jury's still out on lundmark but he hasnt showed that he can contribute consistently in the NHL. The Rangers have a lot of 3rd and 4th liners in their organization but none top-end talents like Malkin. With 2 picks in the top six they can get two great prospects, and still have 4 picks in the 2nd round.

rangerz68 is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 02:57 PM
  #10
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,449
vCash: 500
As history has proved having depth with 3 or 4 good to very good players is more beneficial than having 1 excellent player.

You build with depth around a cornerstone,and use that depth to get one possibly. The Rangers aren't there yet. Doing such a trade now would be very foolish.

As for Tukonen, I just see a lot of Jani Rita in him as an NHL scorer.

Edge is online now  
Old
06-09-2004, 03:46 PM
  #11
HockeyBurd*
 
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt13
What if Pittsburgh wanted the 24th, an early second, Balej, another young minor leaguer and Lundmark for the 2nd, would you take it? In a year like this, to get a top 10 pick, especially with Pittsburgh, you HAVE to give up a talented prospect (Balej) and more.
Not in a million years. Lets qualify exactly what you're suggesting-
We get: Malkin
They get: Balej(our best offensive prospect), a first(24th), a second(probably 36th or 37th), Lundmark, another minor leager(since you list them ahead of Lundmark and assuming you also include Europe it would most likely be Kondratiev, Prucha, Murray, Moore or the like).

So that's 5 pieces of quality for 1 excellent prospect. 5 very good chips that have the potential to be excellent for 1 excellent chip that has a small potential to not live up to the hype. And that is an absolute fact. No matter how much Pitt fans or other HF readers want to convince themselves otherwise, Malkin is still just a great prospect who could easily not materialize into a great player. There's nothing that anybody can say that would convince me that he CAN'T be the next Victor Kozlov or the like. It may be less likely but it's still too much of a risk.

And in the end, IMO, those 5 pieces have a much better chance of contributing to a team in a rebuilding stage than that 1 excellent prospect. I've seen Balej and I'm convinced he is the real deal. The rest is simply too much quality depth to sacrifice.

HockeyBurd* is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 03:54 PM
  #12
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangerz68
Yes this is a steep price. But Malkin is gonna be a top-line center, something we have lacked in how many years. They aren't going to have too many opportunities to acquire a big center with that much skill.
That's probably the exact same thing that the Flyers said as they made the Lindros trade. How did that one work out for both the trading and the recieving team?
3 prospects, a 1st rounder & a 2nd rounder is FAR too much to give up for the #2 overall pick.

True Blue is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 04:16 PM
  #13
Blueshirt13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Other side of the Ri
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBurd
And in the end, IMO, those 5 pieces have a much better chance of contributing to a team in a rebuilding stage than that 1 excellent prospect. I've seen Balej and I'm convinced he is the real deal. The rest is simply too much quality depth to sacrifice.
I agree with you completely. I was just putting up the post to give perspective on what it might take to land the number 1 or 2 pick.

As I've said previously, I am more for picking up as many people as we can to add depth and skill to the organization.

Blueshirt13 is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 04:34 PM
  #14
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
The Flyers traded two 2nd rounders and Fedotenko (who at the time looked somewhat less impressive than he does now) to get the #4 pick they used on Pitkanen. Sending Lundmark, Balej, the 24th pick and a 2nd rounder seems to me to a little much to pay for the right to draft Malkin.

Still, you ultimately have to look at whether Malkin + 6th round pick add up to more than Lundmark, Balej and the two picks.

So what are the Rangers giving up?

Lundmark - Struggled last season although he did have a solid though not spectacular rookie year. He's shown some scoring at the AHL level, but appears to lack speed and strength at the NHL level...perhaps a 40 point guy under the right coach, maybe a b-version of Marc Savard or a Jan Hlavac type on the wing?

Balej - a fairly one dimensional player who has shown good (though not spectacular) instincts in the offensive zone. Could turn into a decent goal scorer with limited defensive abilities

24th pick - You have to go back to 1996 before you find a draft pick at the 24th spot that has played more than 10 NHL games (Daniel Briere) and beyond that it's guys like Aleksey Morozov, Rene Corbet, Kent Manderville, Stephane Fiset that were picked at this very spot.

Mid 40ish pick - Tyutin was drafted at 40...but so have a lot of "also rans"

By contrast, through the years the 2nd overall pick has been:

Eric Staal
Kari Lehtonen
Jason Spezza
Dany Heatley
Daniel Sedin
David Legwand
Patrick Marleau
Andrei Zyuzin
Wade Redden
Oleg Tverdovsky
Chris Pronger
Alexei Yashin
Pat Falloon
Petr Nedved
Dave Chyzowski
Trevor Linden
Brendan Shanahan
etc...

The question is where are the odds the best? Ironically enough it may actually be with the single pick if you're looking for star power. By contrast I am inclined to agree here with TrueBlue's point that it's less about a player and more about depth.

While giving up those 4 players may not be an impact to a better team, the Rangers do run the risk of depleting their prospect depth once more. You could make the argument that Malkin plus 3 other players (wherever you get them from) might be a better return, but it's a tough decision when the forward prospect pool in particular is pretty spare as is the case with the Rangers.

Fish is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 05:20 PM
  #15
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
The Flyers traded two 2nd rounders and Fedotenko (who at the time looked somewhat less impressive than he does now) to get the #4 pick they used on Pitkanen. Sending Lundmark, Balej, the 24th pick and a 2nd rounder seems to me to a little much to pay for the right to draft Malkin.

Still, you ultimately have to look at whether Malkin + 6th round pick add up to more than Lundmark, Balej and the two picks.

So what are the Rangers giving up?

Lundmark - Struggled last season although he did have a solid though not spectacular rookie year. He's shown some scoring at the AHL level, but appears to lack speed and strength at the NHL level...perhaps a 40 point guy under the right coach, maybe a b-version of Marc Savard or a Jan Hlavac type on the wing?

Balej - a fairly one dimensional player who has shown good (though not spectacular) instincts in the offensive zone. Could turn into a decent goal scorer with limited defensive abilities

24th pick - You have to go back to 1996 before you find a draft pick at the 24th spot that has played more than 10 NHL games (Daniel Briere) and beyond that it's guys like Aleksey Morozov, Rene Corbet, Kent Manderville, Stephane Fiset that were picked at this very spot.

Mid 40ish pick - Tyutin was drafted at 40...but so have a lot of "also rans"

By contrast, through the years the 2nd overall pick has been:

Eric Staal
Kari Lehtonen
Jason Spezza
Dany Heatley
Daniel Sedin
David Legwand
Patrick Marleau
Andrei Zyuzin
Wade Redden
Oleg Tverdovsky
Chris Pronger
Alexei Yashin
Pat Falloon
Petr Nedved
Dave Chyzowski
Trevor Linden
Brendan Shanahan
etc...

The question is where are the odds the best? Ironically enough it may actually be with the single pick if you're looking for star power. By contrast I am inclined to agree here with TrueBlue's point that it's less about a player and more about depth.

While giving up those 4 players may not be an impact to a better team, the Rangers do run the risk of depleting their prospect depth once more. You could make the argument that Malkin plus 3 other players (wherever you get them from) might be a better return, but it's a tough decision when the forward prospect pool in particular is pretty spare as is the case with the Rangers.
I wouldn't give up quite that much... if you could turn the 24th to another 2nd then I would consider it - but hey I'm a gambling man

I like Balej, but I think we may be overhyping him a bit. He'll probably be a fairly one-dimensional 25 goal scorer. I like him a lot but he's not untouchable.

Lundmark could go, and I wouldnt mind losing a 2nd or two being as we have 5 already.

If we could give up a bit less then I'd probably do it... right now I think we are just moving to much depth - too many eggs in one basket - Though hey I am a sucker for cornerstones , so if we could mold it a bit differently or get a solid guy back then it would be really hard for me to turn it down.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 06:02 PM
  #16
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
I wouldn't give up quite that much... if you could turn the 24th to another 2nd then I would consider it - but hey I'm a gambling man

I like Balej, but I think we may be overhyping him a bit. He'll probably be a fairly one-dimensional 25 goal scorer. I like him a lot but he's not untouchable.

Lundmark could go, and I wouldnt mind losing a 2nd or two being as we have 5 already.

If we could give up a bit less then I'd probably do it... right now I think we are just moving to much depth - too many eggs in one basket - Though hey I am a sucker for cornerstones , so if we could mold it a bit differently or get a solid guy back then it would be really hard for me to turn it down.
the reason why i don't trade balej in this type of deal is because he's our safest prospect with upside, why trade that when we have a lot of possible balej's in the system

balej is on the same level as tjutin imo

in the hall is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 06:06 PM
  #17
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall
the reason why i don't trade balej in this type of deal is because he's our safest prospect with upside, why trade that when we have a lot of possible balej's in the system

balej is on the same level as tjutin imo
Not to me... IMHO a very solid 2 or 3 d-man is more valuable then a one dimensional 2nd line winger. I really like Balej - I don't want it to sound like I'm bashing him at all, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Baleh may be one of our safer forwards, but you have to remember you'd be getting back a guy who could be a franchise center.

Again I do think this is too much... but if we could bring the deal a bit closer then I would really consider it.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-09-2004, 07:40 PM
  #18
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
I like Balej, but I think we may be overhyping him a bit. He'll probably be a fairly one-dimensional 25 goal scorer. I like him a lot but he's not untouchable.

I think the most overhyped part here is Malkin, he hasn't done crap yet, there is no guarantee that he is the next coming of Modano, or whoever he is supposed to resemble. In fact he lacks weight and already suffered a major concussion. I don't see him as being the next great one. Most likely he will be the next Legwand. So there is no reason to take such a huge gamble on him and give up so many good assets for him, even if there is a good chance that he will be very good.

Prucha73 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 03:55 PM.

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.