Gordie Clark

[Raspewtin]

His name is Henrik.

W/O him, the real blemishes would show nightly.

Good thing Henrik is, you know, part of the team?

For a team that "lives and dies by Lundqvist" we finished in a pretty good spot after him having his worst season in the NHL.

 

[Bluenote13]

This team was a good team last year.

Who was that teams star player ?

 

[Bluenote13]

Good thing Henrik is, you know, part of the team?

For a team that "lives and dies by Lundqvist" we finished in a pretty good spot after him having his worst season in the NHL.

Statistically, and thats dubious, it came when we switched coaches, the whole team took time to adapt. How was he after that?

Again, many played great, Hank played the greatest.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Good thing Henrik is, you know, part of the team?

For a team that "lives and dies by Lundqvist" we finished in a pretty good spot after him having his worst season in the NHL.

Squarely in the middle of the pack. Rejoice!

 

[Raspewtin]

Squarely in the middle of the pack. Rejoice!

Again, for a team with the fallacy claim "without Lundqvist this is a lottery team" attached to it, that's pretty nice, no?

 

[Raspewtin]

Statistically, and thats dubious, it came when we switched coaches, the whole team took time to adapt. How was he after that?

Again, many played great, Hank played the greatest.

Not factoring the playoffs, I have to disagree, I think McDonagh was more important than Hank throughout the season.

Playoffs included? Henrik and it's barely close.

 

[94now]

I do not think Gordon will ever be a GM. He is not business savvy enough. You have gotten to deal with contract negotiations and salaries within the cap and the idiot owner and other crap that comes with GM job. He is good where he is.
I put his circa 1982 photo on my avatar cause is THE RANGERS at the moment.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Who was that teams star player ?

Every good team has a star player. Not sure what your point is.

 

[Bluenote13]

Every good team has a star player. Not sure what your point is.

Not every teams star is a goalie, and goalies determine the outcome more often than most individual players.

Than again, if St Louis's mom doesn't pass away suddenly no ones having this conversation. Be honest, this was not about talent alone, we had good coaches and leaders. Hank is one of the teams top leaders, ask any of his teammates.

 

[NickyFotiu]

The team sure played awful when that undrafted Talbot guy played this season. Did we even win a single game without Henrik playing this season?

 

[Trxjw]

2003 Clark wasn't in his position of power. 2008, Del Zotto was a good pick at the time. HRHR OFD is exactly what this team needed, they got it, he gave the team 3 good years, then he fell off the face of the Earth. I still believe he was rushed. Getting Stepan in the 2nd round more than makes up for DZ failing.

2010 there's nothing to say that hasn't been said.

You have a very good point on teams having that draft where they net a lot of players, and the Rangers have yet to have one. Call me crazy but I think 2013's draft could be that year.

I wasn't speaking specifically about Clark, but the Rangers in general. But that's not really my point. Getting Stepan doesn't make up for the failure of Del Zotto. The Rangers need a draft where they don't have to make up for a failed selection. They need to pull a few key contributors out of a draft. Most teams around the league have done that. You could argue they did it in 2004 with Korpedo, Dubinsky and Callahan, but the team dismantled that and it was a decade ago.

Part of me is biased because I was screaming for Carlson in 2008, but imagine what kind of shape we'd be in had we taken Carlson or Eberle in the first that year and managed to actually keep a serviceable 4th liner in Weise? All it takes is one selection and this team's future could have been very seriously adjusted.