Toggle sidebar

Rangers interested in Dominic Moore

If a guy who was a free agent signing becomes part of the team's culture, identity and community like Richards and Gaborik have, then I don't know how you can call them a mercenary. I view mercenaries as guys who were trade deadline rentals or guys who were here on one year contracts.
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
Come on. If his name wasn't Ranger would anyone possibly adding him?
Click to expand...

Strictly from a skill level perspective, Ranger was a solid 2nd pairing defenseman with Tampa Bay from what I saw. I would actually be pretty excited to see if he could go back to that - it would add to the defensive depth a ton.

The fact that his name is Ranger just adds to the fun. ;)
 
Zenith said:
Strictly from a skill level perspective, Ranger was a solid 2nd pairing defenseman with Tampa Bay from what I saw. I would actually be pretty excited to see if he could go back to that - it would add to the defensive depth a ton.

The fact that his name is Ranger just adds to the fun. ;)
Click to expand...

The jokes/irony would be never ending.
 
Callys Chicken Parm said:
To call Rick Nash a mercenary is the funniest joke I've heard in a long time. Last time I checked, mercenaries do things for the sole purpose of money. Since when does requesting a trade so that he can have a shot at winning, something completely devoid of money, constitute as being a mercenary?
Click to expand...

Consult your Webster's dictionary. Its often for money, not always - Nash got his.

Now hes after the glory.

Shall I call them imports instead? They are all legitimate stars that didnt spend the first several years of their careers here.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Consult your Webster's dictionary. Its often for money, not always - Nash got his.

Now hes after the glory.

Shall I call them imports instead? They are all legitimate stars that didnt spend the first several years of their careers here.
Click to expand...

How many players in the 4 major professional sports stay with one team their whole career? Guess everyone's a mercenary.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Consult your Webster's dictionary. Its often for money, not always - Nash got his.

Now hes after the glory.

Shall I call them imports instead? They are all legitimate stars that didnt spend the first several years of their careers here.
Click to expand...

I think the whole mercenary talk is getting a little out of hand. Let's just say management made moves towards a common goal and the personnel they brought in are on board with that goal.
 
RGY said:
I think the whole mercenary talk is getting a little out of hand. Let's just say management made moves towards a common goal and the personnel they brought in are on board with that goal.
Click to expand...

Look, this whole thing started as a love poem to some sort of fictional "youth movement" blossoming years ago. It didnt really go down like that. And with this team, the top 3 forwards are all imported. They all make big money. As they go, this team goes.
 
BRB, would you rather we suck for a decade so that we can breed homegrown 1st overall picks into superstars? This team has always been successful, and it is that reason why we have "mercenaries". Crosby's and Malkin's aren't around at the 20th pick.
 
Paul Ranger is putting up good stats with the Marlies. If they're interested, why not? He just can't wear his Tampa number.

Guy went back to college I believe.
 
Are you seriously going to call every player who wasn't drafted and developed by a team a mercenary?

Nash carried the CBJ franchise on his shoulders since he was drafted. And they haven't given him any help. It was time to move on to a contender. Believe it or not, players do actually want to win the Stanley Cup. It isn't always about money.
 
Callys Chicken Parm said:
BRB, would you rather we suck for a decade so that we can breed homegrown 1st overall picks into superstars? This team has always been successful, and it is that reason why we have "mercenaries". Crosby's and Malkin's aren't around at the 20th pick.
Click to expand...

I always thought that was the Rangers plan anyway in 05-06. Sather walked ass backwards into 1996 Jaromir Jagr and a 7th round pick goaltender.

But now, years later, I read this thread and - wouldnt you know it - Jason Ward and Dominic Moore were players worth mentioning as some sort of pioneers of a pragmatic youth movement.

It didnt happen like that.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
I always thought that was the Rangers plan anyway in 05-06. Sather walked ass backwards into 1996 Jaromir Jagr and a 7th round pick goaltender.

But now, years later, I read this thread and - wouldnt you know it - Jason Ward and Dominic Moore were players worth mentioning as some sort of pioneers of a pragmatic youth movement.

It didnt happen like that.
Click to expand...

I agree that Moore and Ward weren't part of this youth movement. Or an important part anyways. However, Lundqvist, Staal, Callahan, Dubinsky, Girardi-these were the first wave. Followed by Stepan, Del Zotto, McDonagh, Anisimov, and most recently, Hagelin and Kreider. All of whom were drafted (or signed as an undrafted free agent), and developed within the organization. Except for McD, who was obviously targeted, but really, was not developed by the Habs at all.

This isn't the NBA. You can't have 2-3 superstars and expect to win. It just doesn't happen. You need depth. An elite goalie and a strong 1st line won't win anything. We haven't drafted superstars on the front end. That's OK. As Cally's Chicken Parm said, Crosby and Malkin won't be there at pick #15. Some teams get their superstars through the draft. We have two free agents, and a guy who was traded to us for the players that headed the youth movement. The core of players was drafted by the NYR.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
I always thought that was the Rangers plan anyway in 05-06. Sather walked ass backwards into 1996 Jaromir Jagr and a 7th round pick goaltender.

But now, years later, I read this thread and - wouldnt you know it - Jason Ward and Dominic Moore were players worth mentioning as some sort of pioneers of a pragmatic youth movement.

It didnt happen like that.
Click to expand...

Look at the team throughout the years. While not every player who was home grown was a superstar (in fact only 1 was), the team depth was largely consisting of home grown players. What else do you want? You can't build a team of home grown superstars unless you suck for a long time like the Penguins and Oilers. Most players who are taken from the bottom half of the first round down if they make in the NHL will be depth players. What's funny is that if you do get something more than that, you end up saying the team stumbled ass backwards to that player. I guess Detroit (the one exception to the rule) stumbled ass backwards to all their stars.
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
He only played 42 games in 08-09. He's played 8 since.
Click to expand...

Ranger would be a minimal risk, high return move. If he played even half as well as he did under Torts in Tampa Bay, he still would be a big upgrade in the #6 d spot over Eminger/Bickel.

Yes, he walked away from hockey for a couple years for personal reasons. That doesn't mean he isn't worth a look, because he was a hell of a player, and at only 28 years old, there's no reason to think he couldn't be again. If he doesn't work out, you're in the same position we are now. If he does, you save a draft pick/asset that you might have used during the deadline to bring in a D rental.

EDIT: Poster on the Leafs board claims that McKenzie just stated on TSN that Ranger isn't interested in returning to the NHL, so it may be moot, but it's still a move that I would have been very interested in making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom