HFBoards

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

Nylander a Ranger...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-16-2004, 04:54 PM
  #176
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Looking at the youth we have right now, there are only 5 players of the players likely to play next year that I feel confident about being on the roster in 3 years -- Lundmark, Balej, Betts, Murray, and Ortmeyer. Only 2 of those players should be top 6 forwards. 2 more top 6 spots would go to Nylander and Jagr. That leaves 2 more to be filled. In the next 3 years, I don't think any more than 2 of Jessiman, Prucha, Dawes, Korpikoski, or next year's first rounder will have developed enough to warrant top 6 ice time (if they develop at all). The rest of our prospects are long shots to even make an impact.

I think Jessiman, Prucha, Dawes and Korpikoski all have top 6 potential. That of course says nothing about who might develop from this years draft.

That also don't take into account a potential high first round pick next year {which is sure to be used on forward if there is one available} and any picks from that draft {which is going to be fairly deep}.

THAT is where the problem comes in. Not even leaving a spot if someone does.

For me it's just the combination of the factors.

Quote:
But in the end, I don't care what he's being paid or if he has to play 3rd line, 4th line, sit in the press box, or be bought out in 3 years, because I think the rest of you are getting way ahead of yourselves in thinking that we are going to have so much NHL talent that the few vets that we have are going to be pushed out so soon. If that happens, great, but I wouldn't bet on it.
So few veterans? We now have at least 25% of our forward spots locked up till 2007. Which says nothing about making any other moves.

Do you really don't care if Nylander is playing on the third and fourth line? We're going to build a winner how?

You also don't mind if there is a new salary structure, having 3 million dollars sitting in the press box? And we're turned the page how?

It's not thinking ahead of the situation to assume that a rebuilding team might actually have a crop of talent in the next 3 years. Esp with what is guranteed to be another high draft pick next year and probably the year after as well.

And that is the whole point of a rebuilding mode, to think 3 years down the line.

Maybe some kids make it, maybe they don't. But there was no rush to sign Nylander and no reason to do so to a 3 year deal. Everyone in the league knows that, but once again the Rangers don't. Nothing's changed, except for the shiney new coat of paint on the same old piece of crap. If this team is going to do anything to get itself together, it has to avoid rushing into decisions like this.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 04:55 PM
  #177
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 BobMarleyNYR
OK, I'm done trying to make my point... I heard what everyone had to say, and I agree with much of it. But everyone is hysterical. Everyone is a zombie in a "rebuilding" trance. This is not worth it anymore.

35 is old now... I happen to be 18, so I guess that's middle age!
35 isn't old for a hockey player?

Tell me what is?

I guess us zombies need to be educated on how a fresh faced 35 year old spring chickens fit into a long term rebuilding plan.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 05:30 PM
  #178
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,886
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
I never said you... errr... forget it. I'm sick and tired of dealing with supersensitivity... Just think about what I said, that's all I'm saying. To turn off to a new player right away is stupid... we've got to at least give it a try. I guess I'm just tired of everyone pissing about every move this organization makes.

Please don't get so easily offended, just try to listen to my reasoning. It makes NO sense whatsoever to write a player off when we don't know how it'll play out.

It's just stupid... no one wants Jagr... no one wants Nylander... where's the talent then? We have kids that will likely be good, but most of them can only make limited contributions at this point - in other words, they're not really good yet.

Yeah, we should be thinking long term, but is it smart to blow a season for the future? No. I guarantee you, things will get better. We have nothing to lose.

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 05:53 PM
  #179
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I think Jessiman, Prucha, Dawes and Korpikoski all have top 6 potential. That of course says nothing about who might develop from this years draft.
I agree that they all have top 6 potential, but I don't know if any of them will realize that potential in the next 3 years. Jessiman is still a project. When we drafted him, we thought that he would take the full 4 years at college and then some time in the AHL. Even if he turns pro early, how much time do you think that will knock off his development. Will 2 years in the AHL be enough? Korpikoski is another prospect that was not taken because he would make an immediate impact. He has a good skill-set and had a couple of nice tourneys, but he has not pulled it together on a regular basis. And even if he does make the NHL in a couple of years, he could start as a 3rd liner and work his way up. Dawes and Prucha are still more suspect than prospect due to their size. Right or wrong, they have to prove that they can get it done here before we pencil them in for a spot.

Quote:
That also don't take into account a potential high first round pick next year {which is sure to be used on forward if there is one available} and any picks from that draft {which is going to be fairly deep}.

THAT is where the problem comes in. Not even leaving a spot if someone does.

For me it's just the combination of the factors.
Actually, I did include next year's first in my list. But again, the same question remains: how soon would they make an impact? Even if we (fingers crossed) grab a wunderkind that can make an immediate impact, there are spots. Jagr, Nylander, Lundmark, and Balej are the only players that look like they are or will be top 6 forwards in the near future (and Lundmark is still debatable). That leaves 2 more spots. Even is someone like Rucinsky is signed, there are still spots, because Rucinsky has the versatility to play on the bottom 6. But if Slats were to step up and sign 2 more veteran scoring forwards to long-term deals, then I would agree with you. But if it's just Nylander and maybe Rucinsky, then I don't see the problem now or later.

Quote:
So few veterans? We now have at least 25% of our forward spots locked up till 2007. Which says nothing about making any other moves.
25% filled is still 75% open. Did you really think that we would or should head into next season with only 2 veteran forwards? Again, how many rookies is enough rookies?

Quote:
Do you really don't care if Nylander is playing on the third and fourth line? We're going to build a winner how?

You also don't mind if there is a new salary structure, having 3 million dollars sitting in the press box? And we're turned the page how?
Why should it matter if he's on the 3rd line in 3 years? You put him in the best spot that is not filled by a youngster. If that's the press box, so be it. If that's the 3rd line, fine. If it's still riding shotgun next to Jagr, oh well. It's $3 mil. This isn't Lindros or Bure making $10 mil a season. If worse comes to worse, he's a $2 mil buyout and gone. Why does it matter to you so much what we're paying him?

Quote:
It's not thinking ahead of the situation to assume that a rebuilding team might actually have a crop of talent in the next 3 years. Esp with what is guranteed to be another high draft pick next year and probably the year after as well.

And that is the whole point of a rebuilding mode, to think 3 years down the line.

Maybe some kids make it, maybe they don't. But there was no rush to sign Nylander and no reason to do so to a 3 year deal. Everyone in the league knows that, but once again the Rangers don't. Nothing's changed, except for the shiney new coat of paint on the same old piece of crap. If this team is going to do anything to get itself together, it has to avoid rushing into decisions like this.
It's not that I don't think we'll have talent, it's that I don't think we'll be so bursting with talent that we won't have spots for 3 veteran forwards. To go from a team with 3 vet forwards and 9 green kids to a team with 12 solid young forwards in 3 years would be an overnight turnaround of epic proportions. But it just won't happen. Maybe if every kid we had turns out as good as the scouting reports say and a few breakout early than expected, but that's not going to happen either.

And it's easy for us to say, "Nylander deserves this much over this number of years and he can take it or leave it!" but it's not us that's out there. It's not us that has to deal with agents and counteroffers and other GMs. It's not our ass on the line when Nylander snubs the $1.5 mil per for 2 years offer and signs for 4 years with Boston, and we just lost out on the last remaining top 6 free agent that was remotely interested in signing with us.

When I see more long-term deals being thrown around, I'll be right there with you, Edge. But for now, the sky is not falling.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 07:07 PM
  #180
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,886
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Thank you! That's all I was saying...

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 08:26 PM
  #181
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
i don't care what anybody says this was a good signing. 3 years is not 5 years by the time jessiman, prucha, dawes and korpikoski are ready to bring there game to the next level nylander will be gone. just because the rangers signed a free agent doesn't mean they have stopped the rebuild. some fans think that playing a young kid in the nhl is the best thing for the kid without taking into account that rushing a kid to the nhl is the worst thing that can happen.

yes the rangers overpayed for nylander but if it means a young player doesn't get rushed to the nhl because the rangers don't have enough bodies to suit up than its money well spent.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 08:46 PM
  #182
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
I agree that they all have top 6 potential, but I don't know if any of them will realize that potential in the next 3 years. Jessiman is still a project. When we drafted him, we thought that he would take the full 4 years at college and then some time in the AHL. Even if he turns pro early, how much time do you think that will knock off his development. Will 2 years in the AHL be enough? Korpikoski is another prospect that was not taken because he would make an immediate impact. He has a good skill-set and had a couple of nice tourneys, but he has not pulled it together on a regular basis. And even if he does make the NHL in a couple of years, he could start as a 3rd liner and work his way up. Dawes and Prucha are still more suspect than prospect due to their size. Right or wrong, they have to prove that they can get it done here before we pencil them in for a spot.
You're right they do BUT that is exactly the issue. What if they do. What if you get a suprise or two? Where you gonna put em? Now we are moving kids to the third line not because we feel it benefits them but because we have to. Kind of Hlvac this season. No matter bad he was, they had to put him on the top two lines.

Quote:
Actually, I did include next year's first in my list. But again, the same question remains: how soon would they make an impact?
No one knows which is exactly all the more reason to keep your options open. If no one is ready then you resign him. It's not like Nylander is the centerpiece that we HAVE to make sure we have locked up.


Quote:
Even if we (fingers crossed) grab a wunderkind that can make an immediate impact, there are spots. Jagr, Nylander, Lundmark, and Balej are the only players that look like they are or will be top 6 forwards in the near future (and Lundmark is still debatable). That leaves 2 more spots. Even is someone like Rucinsky is signed, there are still spots, because Rucinsky has the versatility to play on the bottom 6. But if Slats were to step up and sign 2 more veteran scoring forwards to long-term deals, then I would agree with you. But if it's just Nylander and maybe Rucinsky, then I don't see the problem now or later.
Let's assume Lundmark turns into an okay second line center. Let's say we get a center next year who steps right in. You've now left little flexibility for maybe a Prucha or a Immonen or anyone else who you don't even have on the radar right now. Let's also a trade comes along for a center you wanna get or someone becomes available, now you have to watch two things

1. Your spots and 2. possibly the salaries.

Again I don't have a problem with Nylander, but a three year deal means you might be stuck for that time. I just dont see why this team couldnt offer more options and incentives for a guy who is ideally a second line center and who history or not, played all of 20 some odd games last season having the nenefit of playing behind a center named Joe Thornton.



Quote:
25% filled is still 75% open. Did you really think that we would or should head into next season with only 2 veteran forwards? Again, how many rookies is enough rookies?
AGAIN the issue is not NEXT season. The Issue is two and three years from now for the above reasons. I also said that I HAVE NO PROBLEM signing vets, but WHY to deals that stretch into the year 2007 or 2008? THAT is the question.


Quote:
Why should it matter if he's on the 3rd line in 3 years? You put him in the best spot that is not filled by a youngster.
Because he's not a third line center and we already HAVE a third line center in Holik will be signed just as long. Again THAT is the problem. It's also not a great plan to rebuild a team.

"Oh we'll just put him where there isn't a kid". This team is in serious trouble if that's what the plan is.

Quote:
If that's the press box, so be it. If that's the 3rd line, fine. If it's still riding shotgun next to Jagr, oh well. It's $3 mil. This isn't Lindros or Bure making $10 mil a season. If worse comes to worse, he's a $2 mil buyout and gone. Why does it matter to you so much what we're paying him?
Oh I dunno it might have something to do with the current labor situation....

Or maybe it's the fact that we are supposed to be rebuiling this team and not doing what hasn't worked in the past.....

The fact that "buying" people out shouldn't be the constant solution to bad player personnel moves also comes to mind. That mentality is why we are talking about rebuilding in the first place.....

It'
Quote:
s not that I don't think we'll have talent, it's that I don't think we'll be so bursting with talent that we won't have spots for 3 veteran forwards. To go from a team with 3 vet forwards and 9 green kids to a team with 12 solid young forwards in 3 years would be an overnight turnaround of epic proportions. But it just won't happen. Maybe if every kid we had turns out as good as the scouting reports say and a few breakout early than expected, but that's not going to happen either.
But see that is exactly my point, we don't know which is exactly why we shouldnt back ourselves into a corner. I'd rather have options personally.

If none of them make it, you go ahead and pick up an option. If things go better than planned, you do the opposite. But a guranteed contract takes the ball out of your court and this team needs as many balls in its court as possible.

People are focusing too much on the player and not enough on the idea of flexibility. It's like building something earthquake proof. Having a solid, rigid building only means it topples if things get too much. Making the building flexible buys you time and saves wasted efforts.

Quote:
And it's easy for us to say, "Nylander deserves this much over this number of years and he can take it or leave it!" but it's not us that's out there. It's not us that has to deal with agents and counteroffers and other GMs. It's not our ass on the line when Nylander snubs the $1.5 mil per for 2 years offer and signs for 4 years with Boston, and we just lost out on the last remaining top 6 free agent that was remotely interested in signing with us.
Do you REALLY think he was dieing to come here, or do you think we somehow through enough money his way. Like we always seem to do.

And again I really could care less about next season. The goal is fielding a team in time for the next decade. Not winning 4 more games next season. It's not like every other so/so top 6 forward is going to somehow disappear. If anything i'd like to believe this team will have a clear direction and indiciation of where it is going in the future so that it actually hold MORE appeal to some players.

Quote:
When I see more long-term deals being thrown around, I'll be right there with you, Edge. But for now, the sky is not falling.
As sports has proven time and time again, it only takes one misplaced but preventable move to change the a team's direction for a VERY long time.

It's only gonna take one time of us saying "oh we'll just leave this kid over there for a bit longer" to change things more than we know.

Six seasons ago it was only a "little" decision to go with Brent Fedyk over Stefan Cherneski that left an impact on this teams future.

Sometimes it's those little decisions that dont seem big at first that turn out to be the one's you remember. This team has proved that over and over again. I have no doubt they will again.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 08:50 PM
  #183
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 Son of Steinbrenner
i don't care what anybody says this was a good signing. 3 years is not 5 years by the time jessiman, prucha, dawes and korpikoski are ready to bring there game to the next level nylander will be gone. just because the rangers signed a free agent doesn't mean they have stopped the rebuild. some fans think that playing a young kid in the nhl is the best thing for the kid without taking into account that rushing a kid to the nhl is the worst thing that can happen.

yes the rangers overpayed for nylander but if it means a young player doesn't get rushed to the nhl because the rangers don't have enough bodies to suit up than its money well spent.
The question isn't vets. it's flexibility. and no one knows if they will arriive sooner than expected. but now if they do, we have a problem to work out.

No problem with Nylander but giving some flexibility benefits the Rangers. And that is the goal, to benefit the Rangers. Not to benefit Nylander. Not to benefit Jagr or Holik or any other forward but to benefit the Rangers.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 09:07 PM
  #184
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
The question isn't vets. it's flexibility. and no one knows if they will arriive sooner than expected. but now if they do, we have a problem to work out.

No problem with Nylander but giving some flexibility benefits the Rangers. And that is the goal, to benefit the Rangers. Not to benefit Nylander. Not to benefit Jagr or Holik or any other forward but to benefit the Rangers.
the goal of this season should be to make the playoffs. anything that benefits holik and jagr will benefit lundmark balej and so on. nylander provides flexibilty because he can play left wing.

look is it to much money? yes of course it is but it isn't a 5 year contract its 3 years. nylander will help this team the next few years and when his contract is up hopefully somebody in the system will be able to take his spot. i just hope in 3 years when the top prospects are ready to shine the rangers won't sign another nylander.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 09:20 PM
  #185
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Edge, two quick points as I don't have the endurance for these types of things like NYIsles does

1) I still don't see who Nylander is blocking even 3 years from now. In terms of top 6 talent, we have no one past Lundmark and Balej that is supposed to make an immediate impact, and we have 2 spots open. So if we get 2 surprise forwards in the next 3 years, then we must have had a stroke of luck. But to think that 3 prospects are going to come out of nowhere and surprise us, I just don't see it happening. Not with this crop of talent.

2) Exactly what were the other options? What other "so-so top 6" forwards were available? Conroy and Rolston have signed. Palffy is another RWer which we don't need. Demitra does not want to come here. Damphousse is less productive than Messier. Lindros and Nedved don't seem interested in returning, nor do I get the feeling that they are wanted back. As sad as it sounds, Nylander was the best fit of what was available (Conroy was my personal choice), and we had to get it done.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 09:37 PM
  #186
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,886
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
I think a lot of the discontent is just a steadfast insistance on disagreeing with Sather. If you think about it, there really isn't much to really dislike a whole lot about this signing. If it did become a problem they'd work around it by playing Nylander on the 3rd or 4th line. Plus, this contract by no means locks up Nylander for the next 3 years. He's not gonna get in anyone's way... the fourth line is basically up for the taking at this point. And I think we know that Sather WILL make sure the kids get quality time.

All of this is why it's hard for me to take an anti-Nylander argument seriously.

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 09:58 PM
  #187
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Kodiak: You seem to be limiting your take on things to players available this summer. My whole take on things is that we aren't going to be competing for a playoff spot next season. Nylander isn't some final piece to the puzzle so why is it so important that we lock him up right now? In the next few years there will be more attractive players up for free agency and if the new CBA does bring a lower UFA age with it, then guys such as Martin St. Louis, Satan and S. Koivu (who will be 30 next summer) and players such as Hejduk, R. Smyth and Zednik (who will be 29 next summer) will be available and I would rather have kept my options open for them. And that doesn't even factor in players who might be available through trades and our own prospects.

Again, in and of itself, Nylander does not ruin the Rangers but when you have Holik and Kasparaitis (and possibly Jagr) already signed to obscene contracts I just don't think the Rangers need to further limit their future flexibility.

Chief is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 10:06 PM
  #188
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
BobMarley: You just don't get where posters such as myself and Edge are coming from. Nylander is a stopgap and going into the summer I thought he would make a good stopgap. However, you don't sign up a stopgap for potentially 4 years (don't forget his option year which he can exercise) and a 4 year deal for a 32 year old, who is NOT a top talent, is not a good deal. And bad deals add up quickly.

Chief is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 09:09 AM
  #189
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Chief, the point of signing Nylander was that we needed someone to step in now and take some pressure off of the kids. As I've been saying, we cannot go into the season with Jagr, Holik, and 10 kids up front. You need some veterans to help them along otherwise it's just counterproductive.

As for other free agents that may be available after the CBA, we should be done with free agents by then because any new CBA will not (a) tear up existing deals (obviously) or (b) take the rights of current RFAs and make them UFAs. I cannot see the owners agreeing to that in any circumstance, even if the UFA age is lowered. Any current RFAs would likely remain RFAs until after their next contract or until they sit out a certain period of time. But the current UFA crop will most likely remain the current UFA crop until there is hockey again.

But in a year or 2 when these guys become available, we should be a step closer to achieving a real pipeline of NHL talent. That's when a big-name signing will be a roadblock. Not now, but when we're a step down the road. Nylander, with a year or 2 left, might inconvenience some youngster, but he'll know he's on his way out. But the 5-year deal at $8 mil per that Hedjuk is asking for would be a serious roadblock to a team that is still rebuilding.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 09:50 AM
  #190
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
Chief, the point of signing Nylander was that we needed someone to step in now and take some pressure off of the kids. As I've been saying, we cannot go into the season with Jagr, Holik, and 10 kids up front. You need some veterans to help them along otherwise it's just counterproductive.
I don't disagree with everything you're saying but people make it sound like Nylander is either the only option or the best option. I don't think he was either at a 3+1 year deal. Agree to disagree, I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
As for other free agents that may be available after the CBA, we should be done with free agents by then because any new CBA will not (a) tear up existing deals (obviously) or (b) take the rights of current RFAs and make them UFAs. I cannot see the owners agreeing to that in any circumstance, even if the UFA age is lowered. Any current RFAs would likely remain RFAs until after their next contract or until they sit out a certain period of time. But the current UFA crop will most likely remain the current UFA crop until there is hockey again.
When the last CBA went into effect, the RFA's who qualified for unrestricted free agency under the new deal got it. There was no grandfathering of RFA status and I don't think we'll see anything different with the new CBA. Be that as it may, a player like Morrison has a current one year deal. I expect there to be a new CBA before the 05-06 season and if new rules are in place, I would expect him to be a UFA. I never suggested that existing player contracts would get torn up.

Chief is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 11:53 AM
  #191
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
people make it sound like Nylander is either the only option or the best option.
He might be both. I think you'd be hard pressed to find somone of Nylander's caliber who's going to come here for any amount of money or contract length.

Earlier in this thread Edge asked, why do we need ANYONE to fill the role that Nylander will and Kodiak gave some great reasons why. We don't have anyone in the organization who's projected to do what he will do this year or next. Even if we did, simply throwing the HFD WolfPack featuring Holik and Jagr to the wolves every night is not the best game plan IMHO.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 01:04 PM
  #192
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
I don't disagree with everything you're saying but people make it sound like Nylander is either the only option or the best option. I don't think he was either at a 3+1 year deal. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
What were the better options? Here are the remaining top 6 forwards that are UFAs:
Audette - primarily a RWer when we need C/LW, hasn't been the same since the arm injury
Bondra - primarily a RWer though he can play LW, old and likely expensive to lure away from Ottawa
Carter - HA!
Czerkawski - soft and 1-dimensional, also primarily a RWer
Demitra - flat-out said he would not sign here
Kariya - if you think Nylander's deal will become an albatross, imagine what kind of deal it would take to get Kariya to come to a bottom-feeder
Kovalev - HA!
McAmmond - not exactly a bonafide top 6 forward, but versatile and likely cheap, he's still an option, IMO, but for a much smaller contract, but he would not have been our only signing
Murray - see Kariya
Palffy - see Kariya
Rucinsky - still an option, but again, not as the only signing we make
Selanne - washed-up
Allison - we don't even know if he's healthy enough, he'd be Lindros part 2
Damphousse - old, less productive than Messier was last year, who knows how much he has in the tank
Francis - see Damphousse
Lindros - not an option
Nedved - see Lindros
Perrault - all he has is the ability to win draws and a good shot, he can't skate, pass, or play defense
Reichel - no chance in hell
Stumpel - he's not better than Nylander in any facet of the game
Zhamnov - he turned down a hefty offer from Philly, so he's not going to take less money and fewer years to play for one of the worst teams in the league

So which one of these guys is a better option than Nylander? Nylander was not my first choice (I wanted us to make a stronger pitch for Conroy), and I'm not in love with the contract, but he was the best of what was left. If this is what it took to get the deal done, then that's the cost of getting veterans to play for a bottom-feeder.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 01:40 PM
  #193
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Melrose/Kodiak: Where our opinions probably differ is that if the Rangers couldn't sign a center to a lesser years or lesser money contract, I would have moved on and gone with Holik as Jagr's center to at least start the 04-05 season (and there might not even be an 04-05 season). If they went with that plan, then I would have preferred the Rangers sign a guy like Laperriere, Weimer or their ilk and let them take a lower line position. Both players signed for less than $2 mill per year. Of the guys still out there, a guy like Van Allen or Travis Green would probably have signed for the same low money type of contract. Are these guys going to make the Rangers contenders? No, but neither is Nylander and they would have provided the Rangers with more flexibility in the coming seasons.

Chief is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 02:27 PM
  #194
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
I would have moved on and gone with Holik as Jagr's center to at least start the 04-05 season
Actually, I think that's where we differ. IMO, put them together and you're compromising the potential contribution of one of them, at least theoretically. Breaking them up and giving Jagr a more complimentary pivot gives this team a much better chance to win.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 02:40 PM
  #195
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,925
vCash: 500
Agreed 1000%....

Holik came here to be the stopper of top lines, not the centerman of a top line. He made his name shutting down the best centermen in the league. By putting he and Jagr on a same line you either take that away from Holik, or you put Jagr in a semi-checking position which limits his offense. By breaking them up, you have a team that makes more sense. You need to spread the wealth, even, or maybe especially, when it's thin.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 02:47 PM
  #196
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Holik came here to be the stopper of top lines, not the centerman of a top line. He made his name shutting down the best centermen in the league. By putting he and Jagr on a same line you either take that away from Holik, or you put Jagr in a semi-checking position which limits his offense. By breaking them up, you have a team that makes more sense. You need to spread the wealth, even, or maybe especially, when it's thin.
if holik is such a GREAT shut down center why can't he shut down the other teams second and third lines?

jagr should play with holik because it makes the RANGERS a tough team to match up againts. nylander should play with balej because it gives bajel a play making center that he needs.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 03:10 PM
  #197
RANGER#11
Registered User
 
RANGER#11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norfolk, New York
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
if holik is such a GREAT shut down center why can't he shut down the other teams second and third lines?

jagr should play with holik because it makes the RANGERS a tough team to match up againts. nylander should play with balej because it gives bajel a play making center that he needs.
Holik realy has not had a solid chance to do the job he was brought in to do he has been shuffled all over.

RANGER#11 is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 03:13 PM
  #198
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,925
vCash: 500
I actually thought when given the opp...

to shut down lines, Holik did a pretty good job and seemed to play better against better players, for the most part. But, as you know SoS, there are typically six guys on each side of the ice and one centerman cannot make the goalie, the defense, and his two wingers better.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 03:42 PM
  #199
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
It's not that simple, SoS. Being a shutdown center requires a different mental state, a different style of play, and a lot of prep work. You have to know all of the little tricks that your check likes to use before hand and where he's most dangerous, and so on. You cannot just expect Holik to go up against 3 different centers every game and shut each one down every shift. If you want Holik to be a shut-down guy, then he has to know that jobs 1, 2, and 3 are stopping Sundin or Thornton or whoever. If you want Holik to play solid, 2-way hockey, you get what we have--a solid but unspectacular center that can score a bit and play with an edge. But we know that he's capable of so much mroe than that.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 04:11 PM
  #200
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
to shut down lines, Holik did a pretty good job and seemed to play better against better players, for the most part. But, as you know SoS, there are typically six guys on each side of the ice and one centerman cannot make the goalie, the defense, and his two wingers better.
which is why i play holik with jagr. holik should play with the two best wingers because he is the rangers best centerman. why can't a line with holik and jagr go up againts the throntons and sundins. Which team will have the match up problems? it would hurt bajel if he played with any other center than nylander and it would hurt the rangers if holik didn't play with jagr.


i just hope we have a season so all of these little debates can mean something.

Son of Steinbrenner 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 12:10 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.