darko
Registered User
- Feb 16, 2009
- 70,272
- 7,803
We sure as hell didn't win it either.
2nd and a 2nd would have been fair.
Stars don't have a 2020 2nd.
We sure as hell didn't win it either.
2nd and a 2nd would have been fair.
Whatever, you win some, you lose some.
We won last year with Grabner and Nash, we lost with Zucc and E. Staal.
Hopefully Hayes can bring us back something more fair.
Relax dude. I didnt say we should get great prospect and 1st.The Zuccarello trade is fair value. Stop saying it's a bad trade.
Hudler returned a 2nd+4th
Clowe returned a 2nd+3rd
We were not goin to magically get a great prospect and a guaranteed 1st
I’m okay with getting Dallas’ 2nd this year. If they go on a magical run, great, otherwise, it’s almost to the Rangers’ benefit that they miss the playoffs this year. Figure with the 1st they’re likely to get in the Hayes’ deal, and the potential that TB wins the Cup, they could end up with 5 of the top 45 players in the upcoming draft.
I also think people are really downplaying the possibility of Zuccarello re-signing in Dallas. I know this is Hockey’s Future, but, as @RangerBoy has stated, ownership in Dallas isn’t about draft picks. They have big money in Benn, Seguin, Radulov and Bishop. That’s not the sign of team looking to rebuild. We downplay the aspect of playoff revenue, but most owners don’t. Texas is a prime state for players looking to maximize their income, just as Florida, Tennessee and Nevada are. If Zuccarello is looking for his last big payout before returning home, Dallas is as good a candidate for that as any other team.
Whatever, you win some, you lose some.
We won last year with Grabner and Nash, we lost with Zucc and E. Staal.
Hopefully Hayes can bring us back something more fair.
A 2nd and 2nd, or 2nd and B prospect is what I was expecting.Again the expectations some came up with on their own were unreasonable to start with and when they weren’t met, people got upset.
How did we lose with Zucc? Let's see who we draft first before making those calls.
Again the expectations some came up with on their own were unreasonable to start with and when they weren’t met, people got upset.
The likelihood of a 2nd or 3rd playing 500+ games and bringing what Zuccarello did to the table are pretty remote. Calling it a "loss" at this point is pretty realistic.
The likelihood of a 2nd or 3rd playing 500+ games and bringing what Zuccarello did to the table are pretty remote. Calling it a "loss" at this point is pretty realistic.
The Rangers already decided they weren't going to re-sign him. The likelihood of a 2nd or 3rd playing 20 games and bringing what Zuccarello will to the table for the remainder of this lost season are pretty reasonable.
This is the same as asking if a supermodel wants to go on a date with you and then be upset when she says no because "you really thought she was into you" despite nothing pointing at that
He’s talking about SmithNeither Shattenkirk nor Skjei are '3rd pairing D-Men.' They are both far better than Girardi. And in the case of Skjei, significantly younger.
To be fair, I didn't love either one of those moves. But they are hardly terrible moves and buying out Girardi was a good move.
The Rangers already decided they weren't going to re-sign him. The likelihood of a 2nd or 3rd playing 20 games and bringing what Zuccarello will to the table for the remainder of this lost season are pretty reasonable.
There are no conditions on the conditions.
I'm lukewarm on the return, and I'm really hoping that Gorton has a deeper understanding of the behind-the-scenes pressure that Gaglardi is putting on Nill to ice a winning hockey team. If that results in Zucc getting re-signed and us getting an unprotected first, I'll be much, much happier about this trade.
I guess I'm still going back and forth between the set value vs. the total risk factor with how much potential value we're getting from the Zucc trade. Him being a fan favorite always adds an extra emotional dimension, but rebuilds are never easy.
Just don't draft another ****ing goalie in the second round.