Rumor: Trade Rumor/Speculation Thread XXV: It's a Marty Party [*Mod Warning post #132]

[RGY]

Id rather have Boyle and Moore over Dorsett. You guys are crazy if you think otherwise. These guys are 4th liners. They arent returning 1st or 2nd round picks. Id rather have them with the hope we re-sign one or both at the end of the year. Seriously....Dorsett in the lineup over Moore and Boyle? Are you guys on drugs? This isnt a financial company trying to always maximize your assets when they are at their peak. It is a hockey team. Did you guys miss the game that 4th line had together as a whole? AV had Boyle taking the important faceoffs late....yeah he is getting traded...

 

[Let Blaine Die]

In the newest AV squad with Billy Pidto,Vigneault answered a twitter question about Dorsett. He said Dorsett and Carcillo on the same line will be tough for a team to play against. Carcillo is playing with Boyle and Moore. Unless there's a trade of Boyle or Moore or an injury to them,Dorsett isn't playing with Carcillo. The Rangers don't want Dorsett on the 3rd line. That's why they called up Miller. Did AV drop a hint about the future plans of the front office? Boyle or Moore getting traded by Wednesday? Dorsett can replace the traded player on the PK. The Rangers got Carcillo for a 7th. They can get much more than a 7th for either Boyle or Moore. They can get more for Boyle. Asset management.

We should trade Boyle before Moore not only because Boyle is probably worth more on the market, but also because trading Moore would mean putting Boyle back at centre, and we have all seen how much more effective the 4th line is with Moore at centre and Boyle at left wing.

That said, if we really are intent on making a run in the playoffs (which by all means looks, and should look, like we are), then I wouldn't want to trade Boyle. Let us not forget that we're trading Cally and we're going to need all hands on deck in the locker room (that includes Girardi, who we really should re-sign). Rather, Sather laugh should shop him just to gauge interest and, if a team blows him away then make the decision to trade him. Otherwise, I'd prefer to keep Boyle and even try and re-sign him.

 

[Matt4776]

I only trade Boyle if we can get a 1st for him. Otherwise, I trade Moore and roll a Carcillo-Boyle-Dorsett line.

Boyle is a leader on this time, well-liked in the locker room, and is money in the playoffs. Moore is a one-year merc.

 

[Ail]

Id rather have Boyle and Moore over Dorsett. You guys are crazy if you think otherwise. These guys are 4th liners. They arent returning 1st or 2nd round picks. Id rather have them with the hope we re-sign one or both at the end of the year. Seriously....Dorsett in the lineup over Moore and Boyle? Are you guys on drugs? This isnt a financial company trying to always maximize your assets when they are at their peak. It is a hockey team. Did you guys miss the game that 4th line had together as a whole? AV had Boyle taking the important faceoffs late....yeah he is getting traded...

Calm down. Boyle is still a Ranger, don't blow a gasket. I like Boyle and Moore, but they are redundant on the same line outside of the rare case your centermen gets tossed on a crucial face-off, which a coach will often put two good draw men out for in the defensive zone anyway for insurance.

If Sather can get someone to overpay for one of them, you do it. Also I sense some Dorsett bias in your responds.

 

[Kovalev27]

No problem keeping Boyle Moore Carcillo and Dorsett for the playoffs don't trade any of them

 

[RGY]

Calm down. Boyle is still a Ranger, don't blow a gasket. I like Boyle and Moore, but they are redundant on the same line outside of the rare case your centermen gets tossed on a crucial face-off, which a coach will often put two good draw men out for in the defensive zone anyway for insurance.

If Sather can get someone to overpay for one of them, you do it. Also I sense some Dorsett bias in your responds.

I'm pretty calm. Don't know what would indicate otherwise.

Redundant? They are 4th liners. Role players. Both play the PK and they do it very well. Boyle has been perfectly fine on LW. And they are hands down better hockey players than Derek
Dorsett.

Bias? Maybe honest and realistic. Dorsett has been less than impressive here. He is not a great skater. When he was healthy he was not taking the body enough...a step behind the play therefore not finishing enough checks. Trade Dorsett and get your 6th or 7th back and move on. I hate that MSG makes a "Beginnings" for every damn player. Dorsett is not core piece for the future of this team. He is a mercenary type hockey player.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

The Nash deal proved that dealing core players can really disrupt the success of a team, so I have to think they're at least aware of it. I think that even though MSL is a leader himself, it's really hard to say that he'll come in and the players will unify under his leadership (assuming he gets a letter or becomes the defacto leader in the room).

However, I think the risk of losing these guys for nothing outweighs the pitfalls of dealing them. I'm just a little confused about the strategy of who they are targeting. Do we want to target replacement leaders? These guys are outsiders coming into a room full of players who have been together for a while. Might this be a situation where you target guys who can assimilate themselves over the next year or so, as opposed to adding guys who are going to want to come in and grab the reins? If we add MSL and then buyout his buddy Richards in 5 months, how does that affect the team? How does it affect MSL?

I dunno. It's all speculative, but it's something that, like you said, often gets overlooked around here. A team is a delicate blend of personalities. You can torpedo a season very quickly if you add the wrong ones.

No it didn't. It proved that trading core guys while also letting 3 walk in free agency while two more top 3 guys have the worst years of their careers because they are either injured and/or out of shape can really disrupt a team. Not to get into it again but everytime someone mentions this again I have to comment because it's so dismissive of how many variables there were. It's like if I'm testing whether food tastes better with mustard. I apply jam, mustard, arsenic, rotted dog sh** and soda all at the same exact time. Then I come to the conclusion that the mustard disrupted the flavor while dismissing the presence of all the other things that were wrong in the mix which likely played a much bigger role

 

[RGY]

No it didn't. It proved that trading core guys while also letting 3 walk in free agency while two more top 3 guys have the worst years of their careers because they are either injured and/or out of shape can really disrupt a team. Not to get into it again but everytime someone mentions this again I have to comment

If that's what you want to believe. This isn't the NBA. Even if their top guys played up to par, the team was not going to run on the legs of a 3 or 4 headed monster last year. It was too much turnover.
You need consistency....

COHESION

 

[Mac n Gs]

Id rather have Boyle and Moore over Dorsett. You guys are crazy if you think otherwise. These guys are 4th liners. They arent returning 1st or 2nd round picks. Id rather have them with the hope we re-sign one or both at the end of the year. Seriously....Dorsett in the lineup over Moore and Boyle? Are you guys on drugs? This isnt a financial company trying to always maximize your assets when they are at their peak. It is a hockey team. Did you guys miss the game that 4th line had together as a whole? AV had Boyle taking the important faceoffs late....yeah he is getting traded...

Exactly. After the Carcillo trade, the 4th line has been great, and it's been one of the better 4th lines we've had in a while. Let's just stick with what's been working, and keep it in tact, rather than having ANOTHER turnover in the bottom 6. Having Boyle-Moore-Carcillo with the option to sub Dorsett in, isn't a bad thing to have going into the final stretch of the season...

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

It sucks that the current 4th line is destined to be broken up because it is the best 4th line the Rangers have had in a while. And as we all have seen it can be harder than it seems to put that together.

 

[Gardner McKay]

No it didn't. It proved that trading core guys while also letting 3 walk in free agency while two more top 3 guys have the worst years of their careers because they are either injured and/or out of shape can really disrupt a team. Not to get into it again but everytime someone mentions this again I have to comment because it's so dismissive of how many variables there were. It's like if I'm testing whether food tastes better with mustard. I apply jam, mustard, arsenic, rotted dog sh** and soda all at the same exact time. Then I come to the conclusion that the mustard disrupted the flavor while dismissing the presence of all the other things that were wrong in the mix which likely played a much bigger role

I just...

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

If that's what you want to believe. This isn't the NBA. Even if their top guys played up to par, the team was not going to run on the legs of a 3 or 4 headed monster last year. It was too much turnover.
You need consistency....

COHESION

It's an argument that exemplifies the worst possible way of thinking about identifying a problem or a cause/effect relationship. If you want a real answer instead of random fan speculation you can't change multiple variables and then point to one of the lesser variables as if it's the only one. Your statement implies that the team was going to ONLY run on a "3 or 4 headed monster" as if this is small. What do teams have 8 all stars running them to cups? Gaborik, Richards, Nash, Lundqvist, Staal, McD. ALL of those guys were absolute studs. Staal blew out an eye, RIchards and Gaborik didn't even show up, Prust, Fedotenko, Rupp aged, Sauer never returned. Thats SEVEN guys not coming back and it had NOTHING to do with the Nash trade. Sorry but you're about as wrong as can be pointing at the Nash trade as more important than all of that turnover. I legitimately don't think it hurt the team at all tbh but I can accept if people think it did. My problem comes in with holding that trade up as THE absolute season derailing move when ALL that other stuff would have derailed the season even with Dubs and Artie on the team. And by derail I mean we got knocked out of the PO's 1 round earlier with less regular season success. I guess here's my biggest problem. Let's say the Nash trade doesn't happen and ALL the other stuff DID. We may have actually missed the PO's. That would prove the Nash trade was a step forward/a good move. But we CAN'T look at alternate realities unfortunately...

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I just...

Gabs was the arsenic and Richards was the old, rotted dog sh** btw

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

If they are going to trade Callahan please do it before Saturday. I'd rather have him off the team and have to wait for whoever we trade for to join the team, then to go through another 40 minutes of ice time where he is running all over the ice giving and taking hard hits, getting twisted up in the corner, hit in the head and legs with shots... I was literally counting down the minutes last night.

It would be disastrous and so Ranger like to get within a day or two of trading him and then lose him to injury for the season and forever, getting nada for him. Get him out of here.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No it didn't. It proved that trading core guys while also letting 3 walk in free agency while two more top 3 guys have the worst years of their careers because they are either injured and/or out of shape can really disrupt a team. Not to get into it again but everytime someone mentions this again I have to comment because it's so dismissive of how many variables there were. It's like if I'm testing whether food tastes better with mustard. I apply jam, mustard, arsenic, rotted dog sh** and soda all at the same exact time. Then I come to the conclusion that the mustard disrupted the flavor while dismissing the presence of all the other things that were wrong in the mix which likely played a much bigger role

Yet, you seem to be dismissing the deciding factor in hindsight -- results.

The point isn't that the Nash trade ruined the team, it was that the team was disrupted -- not sure how you could argue otherwise.

 

[AHB*]

No it didn't. It proved that trading core guys while also letting 3 walk in free agency while two more top 3 guys have the worst years of their careers because they are either injured and/or out of shape can really disrupt a team. Not to get into it again but everytime someone mentions this again I have to comment because it's so dismissive of how many variables there were. It's like if I'm testing whether food tastes better with mustard. I apply jam, mustard, arsenic, rotted dog sh** and soda all at the same exact time. Then I come to the conclusion that the mustard disrupted the flavor while dismissing the presence of all the other things that were wrong in the mix which likely played a much bigger role

So you don't think the Nash trade was a major part of that. We let 3 walk in free agency, sure, but outside of Prust, the two roster players we traded were much more vital to the team.

Anisimov was our second line center, Dubinsky was our best third liner who has now turned into a better player then Callahan and some others on our team.

Also, that analogy

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

It sucks that the current 4th line is destined to be broken up because it is the best 4th line the Rangers have had in a while. And as we all have seen it can be harder than it seems to put that together.

Agree, and Im not so sure it gets broken up. Not really a fan of Dorsett and Carcillo on the ice together.

That said, with the Callahan and Girardi situations coming to a head, I have little faith that Sather can multi-task to the tune of dealing with the Boyle, Moore, and Stralman situations in the next 5 days.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Yet, you seem to be dismissing the deciding factor in hindsight -- results.

The point isn't that the Nash trade ruined the team, it was that the team was disrupted -- not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Results based on what? Anyone can come up with an accurate conclusion but still have an inaccurate explanation of what caused it. Can you actually analyze what caused the change that led to the conclusion? I'm not arguing the outcome I'm arguing the analysis. Did the loss of Richards and Gabs have the biggest effect? Maybe with Dubs and Artie we would have actually done WORSE and missed the PO's altogether.

 

[RGY]

It's an argument that exemplifies the worst possible way of thinking about identifying a problem or a cause/effect relationship. If you want a real answer instead of random fan speculation you can't change multiple variables and then point to one of the lesser variables as if it's the only one. Your statement implies that the team was going to ONLY run on a "3 or 4 headed monster" as if this is small. What do teams have 8 all stars running them to cups? Gaborik, Richards, Nash, Lundqvist, Staal, McD. ALL of those guys were absolute studs. Staal blew out an eye, RIchards and Gaborik didn't even show up, Prust, Fedotenko, Rupp aged, Sauer never returned. Thats SEVEN guys not coming back and it had NOTHING to do with the Nash trade. Sorry but you're about as wrong as can be pointing at the Nash trade as more important than all of that turnover. I legitimately don't think it hurt the team at all tbh but I can accept if people think it did. My problem comes in with holding that trade up as THE absolute season derailing move when ALL that other stuff would have derailed the season even with Dubs and Artie on the team. And by derail I mean we got knocked out of the PO's 1 round earlier with less regular season success

Yea most quality teams have 3-4 star players with quality depth behind them. Part of creating quality depth is finding the right chemistry within the role players on the bottom lines. They let Fedotenko, Prust, and Mitchell go. The team got the recognition going to the ECF and it surely benefited Prust and Mitchell. I wouldn't have given Prust or Mitchell the money they wanted because of the cap space we had to work with. And yes youre right there were other factors but the roster turnover was a big part of it.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

The 2011-12 team was if nothing else, a group greater than the sum of its parts.

Disrupting that chemistry, and depth via the Nash trade was a HUGE problem. Yes Rochards and Gaborik slumping was also a problem.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

So you don't think the Nash trade was a major part of that. We let 3 walk in free agency, sure, but outside of Prust, the two roster players we traded were much more vital to the team.

Anisimov was our second line center, Dubinsky was our best third liner who has now turned into a better player then Callahan and some others on our team.

Also, that analogy

I love the condescending shakehead for a perfectly good analogy which is meant to be fun and make a point. I'm sorry it should have been a more serious analogy bc HF is so serious

 

[AHB*]

It's an argument that exemplifies the worst possible way of thinking about identifying a problem or a cause/effect relationship. If you want a real answer instead of random fan speculation you can't change multiple variables and then point to one of the lesser variables as if it's the only one. Your statement implies that the team was going to ONLY run on a "3 or 4 headed monster" as if this is small. What do teams have 8 all stars running them to cups? Gaborik, Richards, Nash, Lundqvist, Staal, McD. ALL of those guys were absolute studs. Staal blew out an eye, RIchards and Gaborik didn't even show up, Prust, Fedotenko, Rupp aged, Sauer never returned. Thats SEVEN guys not coming back and it had NOTHING to do with the Nash trade. Sorry but you're about as wrong as can be pointing at the Nash trade as more important than all of that turnover. I legitimately don't think it hurt the team at all tbh but I can accept if people think it did. My problem comes in with holding that trade up as THE absolute season derailing move when ALL that other stuff would have derailed the season even with Dubs and Artie on the team. And by derail I mean we got knocked out of the PO's 1 round earlier with less regular season success

Sauer wasn't even part of that ECF run. We returned Gaborik and Richards both of which had trouble meshing with Nash who needs the puck the majority of the time to be good (not saying I don't like him). Fedotenko was not brought back, neither was Prust.

Your facts are actually way way off.

We didn't return 5 key guys, Feds, Prust, Anisimov, Dubinsky, Mithcell. That's 5 of our bottom 6. The two best of which were traded for Nash.

I don't really understand how you can actually think that completely overhauling a team that finished 1st in the EC, 1 point out of the presidents trophy and went 2 games from the cup final, was a major mistake.

The Nash trade wasn't the sole part of it, but those 2 guys were key cogs all year. It would be rather easy to argue that Dubi and Anisimov were 2 of the 10 most important guys on that team.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Agree, and Im not so sure it gets broken up. Not really a fan of Dorsett and Carcillo on the ice together.

That said, with the Callahan and Girardi situations coming to a head, I have little faith that Sather can multi-task to the tune of dealing with the Boyle, Moore, and Stralman situations in the next 5 days.

I meant broken up over the longer term, just to clarify. Don't see how Boyle is retained unless he takes below market value. Some team will offer him a stupid deal. Moore too may be out the door in the summer.

Carcillo has been a much more effective hockey player than I expected. His play his put a big ol bullseye on Dorsett's $1.6M cap hit.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Nobody is answering for the VERY real possibility that given the slumps of two all stars AND all the other FA losses and injuries that we may have actually done WORSE that season and missed the PO's if we had not made the Nash trade. Based on Nash's actual performance last year it's actually fair to assume we could have missed the PO's. That doesn't mean it's a guarantee we would have but it is fair to assume or think it. Since that is the case it's simply ridiculous to state with certainty that the Nash trade hurt the team last year. Gab and Rich slumping DEFINITELY hurt the team there is NO arguing that. Even if we had Artie and Dubs the team would have been hurt by their lack of performance. Injuries like Staal and Sauer DEFINITELY hurt the team. Pulling in Nash did not definitely hurt the team. It could have but there is no way to prove it not based on his actual performance and not based on all the other definite negative factors

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Results based on what? Anyone can come up with an accurate conclusion but still have an inaccurate explanation of what caused it. Can you actually analyze what caused the change that led to the conclusion? I'm not arguing the outcome I'm arguing the analysis. Did the loss of Richards and Gabs have the biggest effect? Maybe with Dubs and Artie we would have actually done WORSE and missed the PO's altogether.

Results based on the '12-13 team being worse than '11-12.

Im not going to go down the rabbit hole with your vague "variables" argument. I could make stuff up about how the Nash trade effected Richards and Gaborik if I wanted to.