All Encompassing Tortorella..ella..ella..eh..eh...and Glen Cigar Thread Part IV

[NYR Viper]

I can think of Kovalchuk, Horton, Kessel, Carter, Van Riemsdyk, Neal, Pominville are all first line players that have been traded in the last 5 years. I suppose you can argue JVR isn't a first liner. Fine. My point remains. There were plenty of opportunities to upgrade the talent in our top 6 and in our top line. Vanek might be available now. Ryan has been rumored to be available on and off for a couple of years. Mike Richards was available, but the Flyers weren't trading him to us.

The point is that Nash wasn't the only option ever out there. Players get traded in this league fairly often.

JVR, Carter and Richards were not going to be traded to the Rangers.

How many of the other guys garnered quantity over quality?

Kovalchuk was a UFA to be. There was major risk there for the Devils and he very nearly walked. He also cost them another 1st rounder.

Neal was traded with Niskanen for Goligoski who was looked at as a very good puck-mover. Hindsight is 20/20 but that is not quantity for quality.

Pominville is a UFA at the end of next year. He is over 30 years old.

Kessel is a good example. But he took multiple futures from Toronto which bit them in the ass.

Horton does not belong on that list.

 

[NYR Viper]

That's exactly part of my point too. Making the trade forced us to rely on a rookie LW to contribute to our top 6 when all experience should've told you that relying on such a player is a pretty huge gamble.

Of course it's a gamble. Just like projecting how new players will react to a new situation and how players will develop. All of those things are a gamble. I would say Richards regression to a 3rd line center hurt this team more than Kreider struggling in his rookie season.

 

[Tawnos]

JVR, Carter and Richards were not going to be traded to the Rangers.

How many of the other guys garnered quantity over quality?

Kovalchuk was a UFA to be. There was major risk there for the Devils and he very nearly walked. He also cost them another 1st rounder.

Neal was traded with Niskanen for Goligoski who was looked at as a very good puck-mover. Hindsight is 20/20 but that is not quantity for quality.

Pominville is a UFA at the end of next year. He is over 30 years old.

Kessel is a good example. But he took multiple futures from Toronto which bit them in the ass.

Horton does not belong on that list.

You're looking too much at the specific players and their specific trades. The point is that those players were available. And first liners will continue to be available.

And Nathan Horton absolutely belongs on that list. He is definitely one of the top 30 RWs in the league.

 

[Tawnos]

Of course it's a gamble. Just like projecting how new players will react to a new situation and how players will develop. All of those things are a gamble. I would say Richards regression to a 3rd line center hurt this team more than Kreider struggling in his rookie season.

It was an ill-timed and unnecessary gamble. Yeah, Richards regression has hurt a lot more. But his regression wouldn't have been such a problem had we still had two centers that could've played roles in our top 6 instead of having traded them away. No one should expect to have the depth to completely make up for the season Richards had. But we made it so we couldn't make up for it at all.

 

[NYRKindms]

Of course it's a gamble. Just like projecting how new players will react to a new situation and how players will develop. All of those things are a gamble. I would say Richards regression to a 3rd line center hurt this team more than Kreider struggling in his rookie season.

This comes down to talent evaluation and the Rangers really STINK at it.

Richards wasn't that good last year either. People gave him a break because it was his first season in NY and then he had a pretty good playoffs.

Richards, Gomez, Redden, Drury, the list is long

 

[pld459666]

You're pretending like we got back a bunch 3 Dorsetts in the trade. We got a guy that led the first round series in points and was the 2nd best Ranger after Lundqvist. We got a guy that prevents us from having to play Hamerlik or Gilroy as a 6th defenseman and having Eminger be our #5. Oh and we got a little depth as well. All for a guy that had 0.5 PPG at the time of the trade, is on the wrong side of 30, expensive, and has had a history of disappearing in the playoffs. Even if you forget the long term, if we keep Gabby even if we make the playoffs we're not making it past the first round. This is about as much of an obvious win for us as possible. People just need to complain about something. It seems like a friggin high or something.

I have supported the trade time and again. I like the return we got in the deal. I have said that numerous times. We addressed serious needs. I'm not downplaying what we got back in the deal one bit.

That said, the plan coming into this season was not to trade Gaborik at the deadline. Gaborik was going to be traded, but you don't add Nash tot eh team just to trade Gaborik before the PO's regardless how good the return was for us.

Boyler is is trying to paint this season as a "transition year" and tat description could not be further from the truth.

 

[NYR Viper]

It was an ill-timed and unnecessary gamble. Yeah, Richards regression has hurt a lot more. But his regression wouldn't have been such a problem had we still had two centers that could've played roles in our top 6 instead of having traded them away. No one should expect to have the depth to completely make up for the season Richards had. But we made it so we couldn't make up for it at all.

So in hindsight, you wouldn't have made the Nash trade?

 

[NYRKindms]

So in hindsight, you wouldn't have made the Nash trade?

After watching him in the playoffs. NO

 

[NYR Viper]

I have supported the trade time and again. I like the return we got in the deal. I have said that numerous times. We addressed serious needs. I'm not downplaying what we got back in the deal one bit.

That said, the plan coming into this season was not to trade Gaborik at the deadline. Gaborik was going to be traded, but you don't add Nash tot eh team just to trade Gaborik before the PO's regardless how good the return was for us.

Boyler is is trying to paint this season as a "transition year" and tat description could not be further from the truth.

In hindsight do you disagree?

Because that is what I stated.

 

[NYR Viper]

After watching him in the playoffs. NO

I would still make the trade. It was about more than just this season.

 

[Tawnos]

So in hindsight, you wouldn't have made the Nash trade?

I didn't want to make it at the time it was made, so no.

 

[NYR Viper]

I didn't want to make it at the time it was made, so no.

Interesting. So when Richards gets bought out, and Gaborik now being traded because he no longer was who he was 3 years ago, that would leave the Rangers with a horrid offense.

 

[pld459666]

In hindsight do you disagree?

Because that is what I stated.

This. People think that just because the team finished in 1st last year that they are some great team. They outworked EVERYONE last year. Their defense was one of, if not the best in the league.

This year is a transition year. I think Torts wants to open it up a bit while keeping that outworking mentality. However, he just did not have the personnel this year to do that and Richards tanking didn't help.

This is what you posted. The first time you used the term transition year.

In subsequent posts you re-phrased it to "in hindsight, this is a transition year"

To answer your question. No. Hindsight doesn't change what this year is or was.

Coming into this year we were gearing up for a cup run. You don't add Nash to Gaborik for anything less than that.

The trade at the deadline was made to because one of the big guns was firing blanks all season long. It was also done to bolster the team and get us back to where we were the previous year in regards to depth, but still transition year is not appropo as the focus and goal was to get back to the ECF and further.

There's nothing about this season that reads to me as Transition.

We get eliminated from the PO's in this round, this is a FALIURE of a season based on the moves made in the summer and the expectations that were thee for the group that started the season.

Trading a non-performing asset doesn't convert the season into a transition year.

To convenient of an excuse for a failed season.

 

[NYRKindms]

I would still make the trade. It was about more than just this season.

Well the X factor was / is the new CBA.

With teams having to get under the cap next season etc there should be a decent amount of talent available as guys are released to make space. Other guys are going to have to take discounts in order to get signed etc

So while it may have been an issue for this season we could have just as easily rolled with Gaborik and Richards. We would have had another season of Dubi, Erixon and Ani. Less shake up for the team.

Would it have been more successful than this years team ? Who knows. But we have squeaked in to the playoffs with worse.

 

[Tawnos]

Interesting. So when Richards gets bought out, and Gaborik now being traded because he no longer was who he was 3 years ago, that would leave the Rangers with a horrid offense.

Maybe, but maybe not. It would basically be the same offense they had in 10-11, a year in which they had a slightly better offense than they had this year and basically even with last year. Not horrid, just mediocre.

 

[pld459666]

To me the trade was a no brainer.

Dubinsky seems to have lost something. Not sure what it is, but he's gone from a 20+ goal scoring 45-50 point guy to someone barely haning onto a 3rd line spot. My bad. Dubi had a better year then I realized. On pace for 6 goals and 51 Assists

Anisimov, love the guy but another one that is a 2nd/3rd line tweener.

Erixon is still very much an unknown and the pick is a late rounder.

You get a Rick Nash for that package you do it all day.

Nash basically matched the production for all three guys 42 points for Nash and 43 points for AA, Dubi and Erixon.

What made the trade look bad was Gaborik crapping the bed along with Richards and Kreider.

 

[Kershaw]

I can think of Kovalchuk, Horton, Kessel, Carter, Van Riemsdyk, Neal, Pominville are all first line players that have been traded in the last 5 years. I suppose you can argue JVR isn't a first liner. Fine. My point remains. There were plenty of opportunities to upgrade the talent in our top 6 and in our top line. Vanek might be available now. Ryan has been rumored to be available on and off for a couple of years. Mike Richards was available, but the Flyers weren't trading him to us.

The point is that Nash wasn't the only option ever out there. Players get traded in this league fairly often.



The problem with the timing is that we didn't have the assets to give up. Acquiring top end talent is all well and good, but not at the expense of the way we built the success of last year.

Exactly! Which is why I'm not sure why people say the trade was a no brainer. Tons of Rick Nash types are in the market every season.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Exactly! Which is why I'm not sure why people say the trade was a no brainer. Tons of Rick Nash types are in the market every season.

The only person on that list thats better than Nash is Kovalchuk, and it took a 15 year contract to secure him.

So lets chill with the "tons of Rick Nash types..." fantasy

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I have supported the trade time and again. I like the return we got in the deal. I have said that numerous times. We addressed serious needs. I'm not downplaying what we got back in the deal one bit.

That said, the plan coming into this season was not to trade Gaborik at the deadline. Gaborik was going to be traded, but you don't add Nash tot eh team just to trade Gaborik before the PO's regardless how good the return was for us.

Boyler is is trying to paint this season as a "transition year" and tat description could not be further from the truth.

I don't understand how you can like the trade, see that it has paid dividends and say that you don't do the trade based on the plan at the beginning of the season. Plans change. The plan at the beginning of the season wasn't for Gaborik to be a 0.5 PPG player either. Do you really think that Gaborik would have had the effect that Brassard had? 10 points in 9 games, most of which he was CENTRAL in? What about Moore? If Moore weren't here Eminger would be our 5th defenseman, not our 6th and Gilroy would be our 6th defenseman. Dorsett was good depth too. Forget about money, forget about age and the future. Do you really think Gaborik would somehow lift his game from 0.5 PPG to counterbalance our best skater in the first round and a good defenseman that improves our 5th and 6th D-man positions? He hasn't even been a playoff performer all buy one year of his career (one year he did have 4 points in 5 games, but that's a small sample). I see no reason to believe that Gaborik would help us more than the return we've gotten.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The problem with the timing is that we didn't have the assets to give up. Acquiring top end talent is all well and good, but not at the expense of the way we built the success of last year.

That's fair but that team went as far as it could last year I believe. They had as weak of a draw as they could and only went 20 games to lose in the ECF.

 

[Trxjw]

The only person on that list thats better than Nash is Kovalchuk, and it took a 15 year contract to secure him.

So lets chill with the "tons of Rick Nash types..." fantasy

James Neal is totally better than Nash. That is of course provided that you make sure Malkin is the guy feeding him pucks.

How quickly people forget how dominant Nash was for much of the regular season. Finished 10th in goal scoring league wide, and of the 9 players who had more, only one had fewer PPG to his credit (J. Toews - 2 PPG). Nash had 3 PPG.

 

[stan the caddy]

The trade for Nash was a no-brainer. Nash is worth Dubi+Anisimov+Erixon any day of the week. Dubi and Anisimov had a combined total of 13 goals this year compared to Nash's 21.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

James Neal is totally better than Nash. That is of course provided that you make sure Malkin is the guy feeding him pucks.

How quickly people forget how dominant Nash was for much of the regular season. Finished 10th in goal scoring league wide, and of the 9 players who had more, only one had fewer PPG to his credit (J. Toews - 2 PPG). Nash had 3 PPG.

Chris Kunitz and Pascal DuPuis are way better than Nash too.

Hey, we found the blueprint! All we need now are the 2 best centers in the world.

 

[Tawnos]

The only person on that list thats better than Nash is Kovalchuk, and it took a 15 year contract to secure him.

So lets chill with the "tons of Rick Nash types..." fantasy

I said first liners. Nash might be better than all of those guys, but we didn't need a player of his caliber. What we needed was an upgrade on the wing, preferably the left. We didn't have to make that trade, and in my opinion, we probably would've been better off standing pat.

And don't get me wrong, I'm very happy to have Rick Nash. I thought he had an excellent season barring the slow start. I just don't think it was a good trade for this hockey team at the time it was made.

 

[Tawnos]

That's fair but that team went as far as it could last year I believe. They had as weak of a draw as they could and only went 20 games to lose in the ECF.

So the question is, do you respond to your loss with a major reworking of your forwards? Or do you respond with tweaks and prudence? For me, it depends on the team. I think the Sharks are a team that could have used a major reworking a while back, as they're a group that tends to underachieve in the playoffs. Given the method of the Rangers success last year, to the point that we attained success, I really don't think a major rework was in order.