Rumor: Trade Rumor Thread IV - "What's all the roar over RoR?"

[Heyoooo*]

Again, he's making the players around him better. I don't think you can say that about Gaborik.

This is where I disagree.


Nash as NEVER been known to utilize his teammates well. Ask Columbus fans. He was a noted puckhog.

Gaborik however, does. He can play with anyone, as he has shown, and makes them better. Look at Stepan, or Christensen, even Avery, etc. Look at the 2009-10 team, or look at the talent he played with on the Wild. He never needed anyone, but certain players needed him to produce.

I actually disagree here 100%.

Nash may be making more of an effort now to use his teammates more, but thats never been a great part of his game, ever.

When has any player ever put up points with Nash they couldnt duplicate without him? and what about Gaborik?

 

[RGY]

So you are okay paying a high price for Iginla who has looked terrible in Calgary but not okay paying the price for ROR who is 22 and can be part of this team for a very long time?

Iginla used to be good.

RGY,

In regards to the idea that RoR is actually holding out for a big payout, again, why do you believe this to be true? All evidence, be it rumblings, rumors or inside info, has suggested something went wrong during negotiations and now he wants out of Colorado. Let's just forget about this part of the scenario entirely however because it's impossible to know one way or the other which is actually the case, and more importantly Sather will get this kid on his terms. Stop worrying about a potential albatross contract because it's pointless. Sather would never let RoR strong-arm him into a ridiculous payout. If he does, you can worry about it then. None of us here are suggesting trading MDZ AND giving RoR the contract he wants. Moving on.

It confuses me that you think Iginla is a better idea as a rental, rather than bringing in future long-term talent in a position where it is lacking it. To suggest Iginla is the move this team needs is to say the Rangers are going to contend for the cup this year and trading away more young assets for a rental is worth it. What gives you that impression? The product on the ice certainly shouldn't, nor should the performance of the two well overpaid and moving out of their prime players they have in Gaborik and Richards. Yet you want to bring in Iggy? No, God no. Certainly not as a trade deadline move.

I like DelZotto but you can win a Cup without a puck mover, especially in the system Torts is running. You can't win one without solid forward depth and center is arguably the most important right now since they have the most defensive responsibility. Unless Torts decides to change the gameplan, I have to say DZ for RoR is a good move, for the right terms.

Another RW would be the right pickup for this team? We have 3 top-six RW's on the roster already. How many more need to play out of position? Cheaper assets for a guy who will only be here for 20-ish games and we'll never see him again.

Iginla might, MIGHT give you more after the trade deadline, but I'd much, much rather address a position of need with a kid who can be here beyond the short term.

Enough with the greed nonsense already. Remember all the posts you made about Subban not being worth $4M per year so it was pointless to even consider trading for him? How he was so greedy to be holding out for big money? Didn't exactly hit that number on the head when all was said and done. You don't have any definitive answer as to what the kid would sign for with a team other than the Avs. Enough with the conjecture.

Guys, I am not advocating that Iginla is the answer or the right move. Though I am a big fan of his. However, in regards to a player like Iginla as a deadline rental it makes more sense than to trade MDZ. I strongly do not believe Iginla will cost as much as many of you are predicting. And while he has struggled this year you have to keep in mind his team hasn't exactly been stellar. Its a better move imo then trading for RoR. There's others I'd consider such as Ryder, Jagr, etc (at work cant really do the research from my iphone which is why it took me so long to respond to you guys, sorry about that).

I understand that maybe RoR isnt asking for $4 million or north of it, but I would find that very hard to believe and a pretty naive way of thinking. So you trade DZ for him
and he continues to hold out here, what then? Or Sather caves for the first time in years and changes the standard he and management has instilled over the last few years. I just dont agree with the move for RoR. $4million is the max I'd give him.

 

[pld459666]

Nash at 7.8 in Columbus was widely seen as being overpaid.

Nash at 7.8 in NY, whats the verdict thus far?

Hes supposed to take that next step as a player here, right? Hes in pretty elite company with that cap hit. Wouldnt we expect elite production? He is now the go-to guy on the team (depending on who you ask)

As Antithesis already pointed out, Gaborik at UFA cost of 7.5/no assets > Nash at RFA cost of 7.8/assets.

Nash is primarily a goal scorer, a former 40 goal guy whos numbers have declined steadily since. Im still holding out that he will eventually bust out and get to 35-40 at some point, because after 15 games, its all you can do.

Like I said before, ive never ever seen someone who doesnt score given so much sluck as Nash, especially in NY.

I love the way Nash plays. Im just pointing the double standard out. Maybe its there because of his style of play and nothing else.

Nash has been a presence for the Rangers night in and night out. Granted, I would like to see more points (goals) from Nash, but he's averaging 4+ shots per game and leads the team in scoring and generates dangerous chances every night.

He's been everything he was advertised to be.

 

[Kwayry]

Please stop accusing others of not watching O'Reilly if you aren't willing to acknowledge the fact that O'Reilly's offensive jump last year was fueled by Landeskog more than anything O'Reilly did. Without Landeskog, I seriously doubt that O'Reilly breaks 40 points last season.

When you don't like the message, attack the messenger. That's an age old trick when you are losing the argument.

 

[smoneil]

One more post before I have to go and be productive today:

Can we please retire the following "arguments":

1- Stralman can slot into the top 4: No, he can't. He's filled in on a short-term basis before (a game or two to cover for injury), but he's never been a top-4. In fact, through his career, whenever he's PLAYED as a top 4, he gets exposed so badly that he often gets cut outright. He looks good on this team because he gets very sheltered minutes. Remove the shelter, and you'll see that Stralman isn't even close to a top 4 guy--Torts has even said as much. Don't forget, some of you guys thought the same thing about Eminger not too long ago.

2- Player X (Barrie, etc) will step in and fill MDZ's skates: The odds are astronomically against this being true. The folks clamoring to trade MDZ love to ignore this point, but Del Zotto is the ONLY Ranger since Leetch to score more than 40 points in a season. Stop acting like he'd be easy to replace with a throw in or a prospect. It's just not true, there is no valid argument to make it true, and it makes you look like a fool.

3- Del Zotto is a 3rd pairing defenseman here: Third pairing defensemen don't play PP, PK and ES, getting 20+ minutes a night. You know this. The only reason you call him a 3rd pairing guy is to slight what he actually does to make your point seem stronger. It doesn't do that. It just makes us think that not only have you not seen O'Reilly play, but you apparently don't watch the Rangers either.

4- Del Zotto isn't a real PMD: If your definition of a "real PMD" is a guy like Leetch, Karlsson or Green (when he was playing well), then the NHL never has more than one or two "real" PMD's per year. If we're applying that rationale to player movements, then let's trade everyone except Lundqvist, because they aren't "real" #1 centers, wingers or defensemen. And why on earth are we bothering with O'Reilly?! A "real" center would be Wayne Gretzky, and RO'R isn't even close! Bottom line--Del Zotto did something only 18 other defensemen did last year, and he was one of the youngest ones to do it.

5- We have depth on D, but we NEED a center: We have one offensive d-man capable of playing in the top four. We have four centers capable of playing in the top nine. Math not your strong suit? Richards is a vet, and he's not exactly 100 years old. Stop overreacting to a cold start to a season with no training camp. He'll come around.

6- MDZ will NEVER be more than our 4th best D: Another absurd argument. I have a hard time seeing MDZ becoming better than McD (though to be fair, I did expect more from McD offensively this year than what we've seen so far). That said, Staal is entering his prime and Girardi is IN his prime. Both are currently better than Del Zotto, but Del Zotto is better than either of them were at 22 years of age. It's entirely possible that in a season or two, we're talking about moving Staal because HE'S the "third pairing LD." There's no doubt in my mind that MDZ will eventually eclipse Girardi, but he's safer due to his status as a natural RD.

If you must keep this argument, then apply it fairly. Why trade for O'Reilly at all? After all, he'll never be more than our #3 center, right? Don't value one guy based on a future projection and then discount another based on his status today. It's dishonest.

Back to your regularly scheduled mauling of Cinna the poet.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

This is where I disagree.


Nash as NEVER been known to utilize his teammates well. Ask Columbus fans. He was a noted puckhog.

Use which teammates exactly? David Vyborny? Jan Hrdina? Freddy Modin? A broken Michael Peca? Kristian Huselius? Manny Malhotra? RJ Umberger?

Gaborik however, does. He can play with anyone, as he has shown, and makes them better. Look at Stepan, or Christensen, even Avery, etc. Look at the 2009-10 team, or look at the talent he played with on the Wild. He never needed anyone, but certain players needed him to produce.

Who on the 09-10 team did Gaborik make better? He had 22 more goals than the next leading goal scorer.

Nash may be making more of an effort now to use his teammates more, but thats never been a great part of his game, ever.

And that's a bad thing?

When has any player ever put up points with Nash they couldnt duplicate without him? and what about Gaborik?

Hagelin for starters.

 

[Kwayry]

So now the number of people saying things that aren't true makes it more valid? Boom Boom, this board, particularly over the last couple of years, has become such a "mob-mentality" that I usually just roll my eyes at group-think posts and decide not to bother. I doubt I'm the only one.

This board LOVES to pick one player, informally decide on a "meme" for that player, and then repeat it until it suddenly becomes the "truth." Last year, it was Dubinsky, with the combo of "he's a dumb player" and "he doesn't know what kind of player he is." Neither label was true, but one or two guys started saying it, and the crowd that got pissed off by his holdout combined with the crowd that was in love with Nash started repeating it all the time.

Now, it's Del Zotto's turn. It's another perfect storm. There are some guys who have never liked the kid for some reason (no idea why, but like Dubinsky, there's a crowd of posters here who have been in favor of trading Del Zotto since mid-way through his rookie year). Once again, we see the meme building--just look through this thread. Suddenly, he's "not a real puck mover" and he's "inconsistent." One guy said it a few times, and then others latched on. It's absurd.

I have seen O'Reilly play. He's VERY good defensively (though not as good as Callahan, IMO--in fairness, he's much younger and playing the tougher position, but Cally is more decisive/instinctive in his defensive play--RO'R has a tendency to over-think things from time to time, which worries me at playoff time). Offensively? He's capable, but he's nothing special. On the offensive side of the puck, he reminds me a lot of Dom Moore (the Toronto/Tampa Bay version--not when he was with us). He's a decent passer, but doesn't really have a shooter's instincts. Last season, I saw a player who benefitted from having a phenomenal player on his wing. Landeskog made all kinds of space for O'Reilly last season, driving to the net, drawing multiple defenders and then dishing the puck to O'Reilly for the easy tap in. Alternately, O'Reilly would frequently give the puck to Landeskog, who would make a goal happen (resulting in an "assist" for O'Reilly, even though the pass rarely had much to do with the goal).

That doesn't make O'Reilly trash. He's still a good player and I would still love to have him on the Rangers third line. But he's NOT a #1 center and he never will be. He doesn't have the offensive skill to fill that role, and he's never shown that level of skill at any level.



You just did what Kwayry pointed out earlier, btw. You characterize MDZ by what he is right now, while valuing O'Reilly by what you think he could be. Frankly, the fact that you think O'Reilly can put up 60+ points "without question" and that he has "offensive swagger" (swagger is the last word I would use to describe O'Reilly's offense) makes me seriously question your take on the player.

I said it earlier--a 40+ point defenseman is MUCH rarer than a 50+ point forward. Last year, there were only 19 of the former and nearly 100 of the latter. The only way that you can argue that RO'R has more value than MDZ is to play prognosticator and assume that you know that Del Zotto will never progress and the O'Reilly will hit a ceiling that he has never been projected to have. Frankly, THAT, to me, sounds like the "fairytale, delusional world"--regardless of how many people are saying it.

Well said.

 

[Kwayry]

One more post before I have to go and be productive today:

Can we please retire the following "arguments":

1- Stralman can slot into the top 4: No, he can't. He's filled in on a short-term basis before (a game or two to cover for injury), but he's never been a top-4. In fact, through his career, whenever he's PLAYED as a top 4, he gets exposed so badly that he often gets cut outright. He looks good on this team because he gets very sheltered minutes. Remove the shelter, and you'll see that Stralman isn't even close to a top 4 guy--Torts has even said as much. Don't forget, some of you guys thought the same thing about Eminger not too long ago.

2- Player X (Barrie, etc) will step in and fill MDZ's skates: The odds are astronomically against this being true. The folks clamoring to trade MDZ love to ignore this point, but Del Zotto is the ONLY Ranger since Leetch to score more than 40 points in a season. Stop acting like he'd be easy to replace with a throw in or a prospect. It's just not true, there is no valid argument to make it true, and it makes you look like a fool.

3- Del Zotto is a 3rd pairing defenseman here: Third pairing defensemen don't play PP, PK and ES, getting 20+ minutes a night. You know this. The only reason you call him a 3rd pairing guy is to slight what he actually does to make your point seem stronger. It doesn't do that. It just makes us think that not only have you not seen O'Reilly play, but you apparently don't watch the Rangers either.

4- Del Zotto isn't a real PMD: If your definition of a "real PMD" is a guy like Leetch, Karlsson or Green (when he was playing well), then the NHL never has more than one or two "real" PMD's per year. If we're applying that rationale to player movements, then let's trade everyone except Lundqvist, because they aren't "real" #1 centers, wingers or defensemen. And why on earth are we bothering with O'Reilly?! A "real" center would be Wayne Gretzky, and RO'R isn't even close! Bottom line--Del Zotto did something only 18 other defensemen did last year, and he was one of the youngest ones to do it.

5- We have depth on D, but we NEED a center: We have one offensive d-man capable of playing in the top four. We have four centers capable of playing in the top nine. Math not your strong suit? Richards is a vet, and he's not exactly 100 years old. Stop overreacting to a cold start to a season with no training camp. He'll come around.

6- MDZ will NEVER be more than our 4th best D: Another absurd argument. I have a hard time seeing MDZ becoming better than McD (though to be fair, I did expect more from McD offensively this year than what we've seen so far). That said, Staal is entering his prime and Girardi is IN his prime. Both are currently better than Del Zotto, but Del Zotto is better than either of them were at 22 years of age. It's entirely possible that in a season or two, we're talking about moving Staal because HE'S the "third pairing LD." There's no doubt in my mind that MDZ will eventually eclipse Girardi, but he's safer due to his status as a natural RD.

If you must keep this argument, then apply it fairly. Why trade for O'Reilly at all? After all, he'll never be more than our #3 center, right? Don't value one guy based on a future projection and then discount another based on his status today. It's dishonest.

Back to your regularly scheduled mauling of Cinna the poet.

And 1 more:
DZ has plateaued at 22, and cannot develop further.
RoR at 22 has not hit his ceiling yet.

 

[Kwayry]

I have seen O'Reilly play. He's VERY good defensively (though not as good as Callahan, IMO--in fairness, he's much younger and playing the tougher position, but Cally is more decisive/instinctive in his defensive play--RO'R has a tendency to over-think things from time to time, which worries me at playoff time). Offensively? He's capable, but he's nothing special. On the offensive side of the puck, he reminds me a lot of Dom Moore (the Toronto/Tampa Bay version--not when he was with us). He's a decent passer, but doesn't really have a shooter's instincts. Last season, I saw a player who benefitted from having a phenomenal player on his wing. Landeskog made all kinds of space for O'Reilly last season, driving to the net, drawing multiple defenders and then dishing the puck to O'Reilly for the easy tap in. Alternately, O'Reilly would frequently give the puck to Landeskog, who would make a goal happen (resulting in an "assist" for O'Reilly, even though the pass rarely had much to do with the goal).

That doesn't make O'Reilly trash. He's still a good player and I would still love to have him on the Rangers third line. But he's NOT a #1 center and he never will be. He doesn't have the offensive skill to fill that role, and he's never shown that level of skill at any level.

Since you don't agree with their assessment, you must be pretending

 

[pld459666]

One more post before I have to go and be productive today:

Can we please retire the following "arguments":

1- Stralman can slot into the top 4: No, he can't. He's filled in on a short-term basis before (a game or two to cover for injury), but he's never been a top-4. In fact, through his career, whenever he's PLAYED as a top 4, he gets exposed so badly that he often gets cut outright. He looks good on this team because he gets very sheltered minutes. Remove the shelter, and you'll see that Stralman isn't even close to a top 4 guy--Torts has even said as much. Don't forget, some of you guys thought the same thing about Eminger not too long ago.

2- Player X (Barrie, etc) will step in and fill MDZ's skates: The odds are astronomically against this being true. The folks clamoring to trade MDZ love to ignore this point, but Del Zotto is the ONLY Ranger since Leetch to score more than 40 points in a season. Stop acting like he'd be easy to replace with a throw in or a prospect. It's just not true, there is no valid argument to make it true, and it makes you look like a fool.

3- Del Zotto is a 3rd pairing defenseman here: Third pairing defensemen don't play PP, PK and ES, getting 20+ minutes a night. You know this. The only reason you call him a 3rd pairing guy is to slight what he actually does to make your point seem stronger. It doesn't do that. It just makes us think that not only have you not seen O'Reilly play, but you apparently don't watch the Rangers either.

4- Del Zotto isn't a real PMD: If your definition of a "real PMD" is a guy like Leetch, Karlsson or Green (when he was playing well), then the NHL never has more than one or two "real" PMD's per year. If we're applying that rationale to player movements, then let's trade everyone except Lundqvist, because they aren't "real" #1 centers, wingers or defensemen. And why on earth are we bothering with O'Reilly?! A "real" center would be Wayne Gretzky, and RO'R isn't even close! Bottom line--Del Zotto did something only 18 other defensemen did last year, and he was one of the youngest ones to do it.

5- We have depth on D, but we NEED a center: We have one offensive d-man capable of playing in the top four. We have four centers capable of playing in the top nine. Math not your strong suit? Richards is a vet, and he's not exactly 100 years old. Stop overreacting to a cold start to a season with no training camp. He'll come around.

6- MDZ will NEVER be more than our 4th best D: Another absurd argument. I have a hard time seeing MDZ becoming better than McD (though to be fair, I did expect more from McD offensively this year than what we've seen so far). That said, Staal is entering his prime and Girardi is IN his prime. Both are currently better than Del Zotto, but Del Zotto is better than either of them were at 22 years of age. It's entirely possible that in a season or two, we're talking about moving Staal because HE'S the "third pairing LD." There's no doubt in my mind that MDZ will eventually eclipse Girardi, but he's safer due to his status as a natural RD.

If you must keep this argument, then apply it fairly. Why trade for O'Reilly at all? After all, he'll never be more than our #3 center, right? Don't value one guy based on a future projection and then discount another based on his status today. It's dishonest.

Back to your regularly scheduled mauling of Cinna the poet.

I love when someone posts exactly what I was going to post (word for word with the identical structure ) right before I was going to post it.

It's like your in my head....

GET OUT

Well Said.

 

[Heyoooo*]

Use which teammates exactly? David Vyborny? Jan Hrdina? Freddy Modin? A broken Michael Peca? Kristian Huselius? Manny Malhotra? RJ Umberger?



Who on the 09-10 team did Gaborik make better? He had 22 more goals than the next leading goal scorer.




And that's a bad thing?



Hagelin for starters.

You want a t-bone steak, you go right to the bull's ass, no?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1356531

Also

Gaborik - .443 APG
Nash - .389 APG

You were saying.

 

[Fitzy]

No one knocked Pavel Bure for lapping his teammates in offense.

Lets be honest, neither one makes the players around them that much better. Thats what Richards is supposed to do.

 

[smoneil]

Use which teammates exactly? David Vyborny? Jan Hrdina? Freddy Modin? A broken Michael Peca? Kristian Huselius? Manny Malhotra? RJ Umberger?

I agree with you for the most part, but Nash did have some good players with him in Columbus. Vyborny was awesome when he was there (I think he even outscored Nash a season or two). I have no idea why he's suddenly improved his playmaking, but I'm very happy with that part of his game.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

You want a t-bone steak, you go right to the bull's ass, no?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1356531

Also

Gaborik - .443 APG
Nash - .389 APG

With the Rangers (and that's all that matters to me), Nash.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I agree with you for the most part, but Nash did have some good players with him in Columbus. Vyborny was awesome when he was there (I think he even outscored Nash a season or two). I have no idea why he's suddenly improved his playmaking, but I'm very happy with that part of his game.

Who were these good players? Zherdev? Prospal?

 

[Heyoooo*]

Nash is not better at utilizing his teammates, regardless.

Gaborik utilized his teammates by getting open. He sure inflated some assist totals of pretty average players during his career.

If you first started watching Gaborik as a Ranger, youd know that yourself.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

I know there hasn't been much to report on with trades, but perhaps a Nash vs. Gaborik debate is best suited elsewhere.

 

[bernmeister]

You want a t-bone steak, you go right to the bull's ass, no?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1356531

Also

Gaborik - .443 APG
Nash - .389 APG

You were saying.

Yes, but my friend Tommy Boy, at what point would you rather take the butcher's word for it?

 

[bernmeister]

Again, no sacred cows.

It's ok to go back 2 steps temporary in the short term to go ahead 5 the following year, if that turns out to be the case in a particular situation; that's called the bigger picture.

That not withstanding, whether or not we trade MDZ or anybody else, whether as a single trade or in a concert of multiple transactions, the key is do we wind up with a net profit.

There are valid points pro and con ROR.

Is that the best use of MDZ if we do trade him?

 

[bernmeister]

What is the current asking price on Matt Cullen?

Don't recall any issue when he was here.
Whether we do other deals or not, he would be useful at the right price.

 

[Trxjw]

One more post before I have to go and be productive today:

Can we please retire the following "arguments":

1- Stralman can slot into the top 4: No, he can't. He's filled in on a short-term basis before (a game or two to cover for injury), but he's never been a top-4. In fact, through his career, whenever he's PLAYED as a top 4, he gets exposed so badly that he often gets cut outright. He looks good on this team because he gets very sheltered minutes. Remove the shelter, and you'll see that Stralman isn't even close to a top 4 guy--Torts has even said as much. Don't forget, some of you guys thought the same thing about Eminger not too long ago.

Exposed so badly he gets cut outright? He's been "cut" once by the Devils, and then came in and played 15+ minutes per night for us. Stralman isn't the ideal option, but who is really saying he's the only one? He can be paired with Staal, get decent ES and PP minutes like he has been doing during most of his time as a Ranger, and let someone else eat the short-handed minutes left by Del Zotto. Whether that's a D-man who comes back with ROR, or another trade, or freakin McIlrath, the organization clearly thinks they can make it work. Otherwise they wouldn't be exploring it at all.

2- Player X (Barrie, etc) will step in and fill MDZ's skates: The odds are astronomically against this being true. The folks clamoring to trade MDZ love to ignore this point, but Del Zotto is the ONLY Ranger since Leetch to score more than 40 points in a season. Stop acting like he'd be easy to replace with a throw in or a prospect. It's just not true, there is no valid argument to make it true, and it makes you look like a fool.

Barrie is already playing 20 minutes a night while providing offense from the back end along with reliable defensive play. If 40 points is the barometer the detractors are using, I see nothing in Barrie's game that tells me he can't contribute those kinds of numbers sooner rather than later.

This "since Brian Leetch" nonsense is just that. McDonagh came up 9 points shy of Del Zotto last year with practically zero PP time. It's not as if we have a glut of blueliners who handle the puck like a live grenade. Girardi has back-to-back years of nearly 30 points. So does Staal. McDonagh had 32 last year. Stralman has scored 30 points in the past and can move the puck up the ice. If Del Zotto was putting up 50+ points per year, I could see the argument here, but he isn't. Now, he may well have the potential for it, but if that's "coming down the road" what's the difference between waiting for that and waiting for 40 points from another young defensemen like Barrie or Elliot, or getting it right now from a Vishnovsky or Streit?

3- Del Zotto is a 3rd pairing defenseman here: Third pairing defensemen don't play PP, PK and ES, getting 20+ minutes a night. You know this. The only reason you call him a 3rd pairing guy is to slight what he actually does to make your point seem stronger. It doesn't do that. It just makes us think that not only have you not seen O'Reilly play, but you apparently don't watch the Rangers either.

That's a fair point. People who say he's a 3rd pairing defensemen are incorrect.

4- Del Zotto isn't a real PMD: If your definition of a "real PMD" is a guy like Leetch, Karlsson or Green (when he was playing well), then the NHL never has more than one or two "real" PMD's per year. If we're applying that rationale to player movements, then let's trade everyone except Lundqvist, because they aren't "real" #1 centers, wingers or defensemen. And why on earth are we bothering with O'Reilly?! A "real" center would be Wayne Gretzky, and RO'R isn't even close! Bottom line--Del Zotto did something only 18 other defensemen did last year, and he was one of the youngest ones to do it.

Where do you draw the line for a "real PMD"? Like I said, he scored 9 more points than McDonagh with probably 10x the PP time. If that's the reality, then McDonagh is as much of a PMD as Del Zotto is. The rest of what you said is just hyperbole.

5- We have depth on D, but we NEED a center: We have one offensive d-man capable of playing in the top four. We have four centers capable of playing in the top nine. Math not your strong suit? Richards is a vet, and he's not exactly 100 years old. Stop overreacting to a cold start to a season with no training camp. He'll come around.

Four top nine centers? By my count we have Stepan and Richards, that makes two, and then a bunch of guys who are 3rd/4th line tweeners at best in Boyle, Halpern and Miller. So I guess I fail at math somehow.

6- MDZ will NEVER be more than our 4th best D: Another absurd argument. I have a hard time seeing MDZ becoming better than McD (though to be fair, I did expect more from McD offensively this year than what we've seen so far). That said, Staal is entering his prime and Girardi is IN his prime. Both are currently better than Del Zotto, but Del Zotto is better than either of them were at 22 years of age. It's entirely possible that in a season or two, we're talking about moving Staal because HE'S the "third pairing LD." There's no doubt in my mind that MDZ will eventually eclipse Girardi, but he's safer due to his status as a natural RD.

If we're waiting on him to become our best, 2nd best, or 3rd best defensemen, why can't we wait for it with another kid who has high end potential? It's possible that MDZ passes Staal or Girardi, but just because he's 22 it doesn't mean it's a certainty that he's going to get better.

In addition, what makes Del Zotto's potential so much more valuable than O'Reilly's? Sure, he might have 50 point upside, and there are few d-men who have that, but ROR has big upside himself. How many 65+ point centers are there each year? How many of those can shutdown opposing teams top-centers as well? How many of them are excellent at faceoffs? That's the kind of upside he has.

If you must keep this argument, then apply it fairly. Why trade for O'Reilly at all? After all, he'll never be more than our #3 center, right? Don't value one guy based on a future projection and then discount another based on his status today. It's dishonest.

Back to your regularly scheduled mauling of Cinna the poet.

ROR steps in today and he's likely in a deadlock with Stepan as our best center. Today, Del Zotto is our 4th best defensemen.

If you must continue to argue against the trade. Please provide something tangible to support your arguments. The amount of retread in this thread of ideas/complaints/concerns that have been debunked several times over is insane.

 

[Ail]

So now the number of people saying things that aren't true makes it more valid? Boom Boom, this board, particularly over the last couple of years, has become such a "mob-mentality" that I usually just roll my eyes at group-think posts and decide not to bother. I doubt I'm the only one.

It's not a mob mentality at all. There are just as many people right now arguing for keeping MDZ and saying all the same things about him, as there are people arguing against and saying all the same things. We say the same things about players over and over because we see the same players over and over, and generally when something becomes the "truth" around here about a player it's because that player probably deserved it. There are only two positions you can hold on the situation:

DZ is expendable and worth trading for RoR. (Or anyone else of equal value.)

DZ is our only PMD and we need him in the line-up.

That's it. So why does it surprise you that there is a majority agreeing one way or the other? If most of the posters in here were saying keep DZ because he's untouchable, is that still mob mentality to you? No, because you feel that way, it's a logical and acceptable position on the issue.

There is always going to be a minority who irrationally bashes whatever player they dislike, and there will always be a whipping boy. Dubinsky became a whipping boy because he couldn't play to the standards of a contract he held out for. Was Dubinsky traded because Glen Sather was on board with the "mob mentality" of HF boards, or because what we saw was exactly what Glen and Co. saw, and therefore found him expendable to obtain Rick Nash?

If DZ was traded for RoR tomorrow would it be because Glen was on board with the mob mentality, or would it be because those of us agreeing with the move, were right?

 

[smoneil]

What is the current asking price on Matt Cullen?

Don't recall any issue when he was here.
Whether we do other deals or not, he would be useful at the right price.

Not sure, but I'd give one of the 3rd rounders for him. His only issue when he was here was that he was expected to be a 2nd line center when he was never more than a 3rd. He's an older guy, but he still has a very good track record at winning faceoffs and he's been on postseason runs.

 

[Dorado*]

As for Wade Richards coming around / no camp / blah blah blah .....
1 . I hope you are right
2. I hope it's not too late ( especially with Fragile nature of Mr Nash's health )

 

[smoneil]

Exposed so badly he gets cut outright? He's been "cut" once by the Devils, and then came in and played 15+ minutes per night for us. Stralman isn't the ideal option, but who is really saying he's the only one? He can be paired with Staal, get decent ES and PP minutes like he has been doing during most of his time as a Ranger, and let someone else eat the short-handed minutes left by Del Zotto. Whether that's a D-man who comes back with ROR, or another trade, or freakin McIlrath, the organization clearly thinks they can make it work. Otherwise they wouldn't be exploring it at all.

Counting New Jersey, Stralman is on his 4th team. At age 26. But I'm sure you know more than all of those teams (including our own, which is on record as saying that Stralman shouldn't be playing above the 3rd pair on a regular basis).

You assume they are exploring it at all. The Avs beat writer said that Colorado wants MDZ. The Rangers beat writer said the MDZ and Stepan were non-starters in the trade discussion. "The organization" is interested in O'Reilly's availability (as they should be. He'd be a great upgrade at 3rd line center). They also, based on what we know, are NOT considering moving Del Zotto to get that upgrade at 3rd line center. "Exploring" the upgrade is not the same as entertaining an absurd demand.

Barrie is already playing 20 minutes a night while providing offense from the back end along with reliable defensive play. If 40 points is the barometer the detractors are using, I see nothing in Barrie's game that tells me he can't contribute those kinds of numbers sooner rather than later.

Watch the games. Barrie was getting 20 minutes a night on a defense corps that, aside from EJ, wouldn't displace Gilroy from our third pair. The "offense" he's providing consists on one PP goal and three secondary assists. He's getting a chance because of how dismal that team is on the back end, but he's also getting exposed pretty badly, and his minutes have been going down as a result.

This "since Brian Leetch" nonsense is just that. McDonagh came up 9 points shy of Del Zotto last year with practically zero PP time. It's not as if we have a glut of blueliners who handle the puck like a live grenade. Girardi has back-to-back years of nearly 30 points. So does Staal. McDonagh had 32 last year. Stralman has scored 30 points in the past and can move the puck up the ice. If Del Zotto was putting up 50+ points per year, I could see the argument here, but he isn't. Now, he may well have the potential for it, but if that's "coming down the road" what's the difference between waiting for that and waiting for 40 points from another young defensemen like Barrie or Elliot, or getting it right now from a Vishnovsky or Streit?

You might have a point with McD. I've said it before that I want to see him on the PP with Del Zotto. The rest of the argument is NOT "nonsense." Do you have a short memory? The biggest complaint about the Rangers pre-MDZ was that we weren't getting enough offensive help from the blueline. Yeah, guys like Rozsival would chip in 30 points (40 even in one of the big-scoring years right after the lockout), but nobody was really stepping up back there. You want to know the difference between keeping the guy we've got who we KNOW can do it and waiting to develop or sign another? I'll tell you the difference:

Sanguinetti. Pock. Ozolinsh. Redden. Roszival. Rachunek. Poti. Tyutin. Mara. Girardi. Staal. And on and on. How many times did we think we had the guy who could take that next step? Roszival hit 40 even once in a season with artificially increased scoring. McDonagh hit 32. Have any of the others even got past 30? This is a mixed bag of prospects, signings, young guys acquired via trade. It even excludes the guys we had high hopes for who never made the NHL (Kundratek, Kondratiev, etc). Stop saying it's going to be easy to replace him. It isn't, and there's a decade of proof that you can't simply ignore.

Four top nine centers? By my count we have Stepan and Richards, that makes two, and then a bunch of guys who are 3rd/4th line tweeners at best in Boyle, Halpern and Miller. So I guess I fail at math somehow.

Richards, Stepan, Boyle and Miller. O'Reilly is an upgrade over the latter two, to be sure, but they are still adequate 3rd line pivots for a contending team. I hadn't been including Halpern at all, though frankly, you could use the same logic on him that you guys do on Stralman (he could do it, even if it wouldn't be ideal).

If we're waiting on him to become our best, 2nd best, or 3rd best defensemen, why can't we wait for it with another kid who has high end potential? It's possible that MDZ passes Staal or Girardi, but just because he's 22 it doesn't mean it's a certainty that he's going to get better.

And yet, it seems that it IS a certainty that O'Reilly gets better? Fascinating.

In addition, what makes Del Zotto's potential so much more valuable than O'Reilly's? Sure, he might have 50 point upside, and there are few d-men who have that, but ROR has big upside himself. How many 65+ point centers are there each year? How many of those can shutdown opposing teams top-centers as well? How many of them are excellent at faceoffs? That's the kind of upside he has.

Who has ever labeled O'Reilly as having 65+ point upside? Oh yeah, nobody outside of Colorado fans and the gullible fans on this board who believe them. RO'R has never--repeat--NEVER shown the offense at any level to make anyone think he would be a first line center in the NHL. Why was O'Reilly a 2nd rounder? Because he had the defense, but not the O. Del Zotto was a first rounder, and that was even AFTER he fell in the draft because people were concerned about his defensive play. He was thought to be a top ten pick that year, and all he's done since then is improve on his defense. Del Zotto has higher upside at the rarer position.

ROR steps in today and he's likely in a deadlock with Stepan as our best center. Today, Del Zotto is our 4th best defensemen.

RO'R will never have Stepan's offense--ergo the more defensive player will be the guy playing 3rd line. Also, "today" you think he's better than Richards? Because of a cold start to the season? Way to overreact there, chief. Richards, Stepan, O'Reilly would be the pecking order.

If you must continue to argue against the trade. Please provide something tangible to support your arguments. The amount of retread in this thread of ideas/complaints/concerns that have been debunked several times over is insane.

I've provided PLENTY of tangible support. You either choose to ignore it (which is not the same as refuting it) or you can't see it due to being blinded by something (which, to be fair, is possible. That new toy is ever so shiny, after all.)