Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Trade Rumors/Speculation Part IX: Dubinsky, Rozsival and a 2nd

  • Thread starter Thread starter *Bob Richards*
  • Start date Start date
  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
How many times do I have to say this? Zuccarello is not the problem with this team.

We're one of the lowest scoring teams in the entire league, and people want to get rid of a player that is 2nd in points on the entire team, and a main catalyst for what little offense we actually do create? Lunacy.

We have too many players who are passengers every night. Zuccarello is not one of them. He battles, hits, and stirs the pot. He plays bigger than some of the deadwood on this team that's almost a foot taller than him. Would you want to field a team full of Zuccarello-sized players? Of course not, but one guy, especially one who brings as much to the table as Zuccarello does, is nothing to be worried about.

The real problem on this team lies with guys like Richards, Brassard, Pouliot, and Pyatt. Guys who don't produce enough to justify their salary, and don't bring enough in the other aspects of the game (physicality, defensive game, etc.) to be difference makers. True passangers. Replace that pile of crap with some young, hungry, nasty forwards with a bit of size, and Zuccarello's size won't even be a talking point. God I wish guys like Yogan and Kantor were ready for the show.
 
Tawnos said:
RB: What about Patrick Kane, Brad Marchand, Jiri Hudler, Tyler Kennedy, Andy MacDonald, Ray Whitney.

Obviously Zucc is smaller than those guys, and some are/were world class players. But you can win a Cup with these kinds of players on your roster.
Click to expand...


If something doesnt fit an argument, people usually ignore it, even tho its 100% fact
 
http://mirtle.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-nhl-teams-by-weight-height-and-age.html

Note: This is from January 18th, 2013, so not technically the '13-14 season.

Chicago - W: 20th ~ H: 29th
Boston - W: 26th ~ H: 21st
Los Angeles - W: 2nd ~ H: 13th
Anaheim - W: 17th ~ H: 18th
San Jose - W: 1st ~ H: 1st
Colorado - W: 8th ~ H: 18th
St. Louis - W: 9th ~ H: 26th

NY Rangers - W: 7th ~ H: 6th

The real difference is all those teams have a lot more offensive firepower/talent than NYR. Pretty interesting that the last SCF was on average ~23rd in weight and ~25th in height.
 
Last edited:
GAGLine said:
Yes, he's small. Very small. But he's 1 player out of 12 (forwards). We don't need an entire team over 6 feet. If you can find me even 6 other forwards who can see the ice as well as he does and contribute as much as he does, who are all bigger, stronger AND use their size aggressively, then I'd be all for trading Zucc to the highest bidder.

But the fact remains that this team lacks both size and skill. Zucc has lots of skill, and he has learned how to use it at the NHL level. That shouldn't be tossed away simply because he is undersized. He has managed to excel so far this year despite his size.
Click to expand...

Well said, and we need to try to obtain authentic sources of both, preferably combined into complete players.

That observation noted, what I think RB and I are trying to say is up to a certain level skill can be developed and improved.

And mechanics especially only allow a certain amount of improvement in speed.

But you can't teach height. At all. More or less, While a 16-17-18 year old prospect could fill out a bit, you are not going to dramatically change your frame beyond what it naturally is.

As relates to Zuc, I emphasize my only problem with him is can he play enough D against most NHL size F opponents? I'm not sure he is worth what increase he will command, given cap forces salary to be a precious resource. But that is a separate ?; can he shut down D well enough often enough to allow the rest of his admittedly improving game have opportunity on this roster.
 
The small players wear down faster. They tend to disappear in playoff games when the intensity and physicality pick up. If we are talking about building a team, it is certainly an issue to be aware of. In specific scenarios, like here with limited talent, you pick your battles. Zucc wouldn't be the first guy I move when I reshape the team but he's gone if the right deal comes.

York was my favorite player but he always tailed off and broke down. I hate the return on his trade but he turned into a disappointment towards the end of his career.
 
DutchShamrock said:
The small players wear down faster. They tend to disappear in playoff games when the intensity and physicality pick up. If we are talking about building a team, it is certainly an issue to be aware of. In specific scenarios, like here with limited talent, you pick your battles. Zucc wouldn't be the first guy I move when I reshape the team but he's gone if the right deal comes.

York was my favorite player but he always tailed off and broke down. I hate the return on his trade but he turned into a disappointment towards the end of his career.
Click to expand...


What does York have to do with Zuccarello? Why does everybody always compare small players here? First we need skill and Zuccarello gives us skill, now he is too small so get rid of him before he breaks down and get a bigger guy. You guys cant have it both ways. Teams cant be perfect
 
Brad Marchand is money in the playoffs and hardly plays a soft game. I think commitment as an entire organization to a philosophy is more important than which philosophy. Of course there's teams who have it all like San Jose: speed, size, skill. Kreider helps us tremendously in that department, as he has them all in spades.
 
And if we are comparing small players and since they break down like the above post says, what about St.Louis? Why isnt he breaking down?
 
Revelation said:
Brad Marchand is also built like a tree stump. Probably has the IQ of one, too.

As much as I like Zuccarello, he will never be built like Marchand is.
Click to expand...

He's 179 pounds at the height of 5' 7". Zucc is built like a tank for his size, and has impeccable leg strength. Two inches shorter than Marchand and only 5 pounds smaller.
 
Brad Marchand is 2" taller than Zucc, but less than 10lbs heavier I believe. I know weight can fluctuate but, well, there it is.
 
aufheben said:
Brad Marchand is money in the playoffs and hardly plays a soft game. I think commitment as an entire organization to a philosophy is more important than which philosophy. Of course there's teams who have it all like San Jose: speed, size, skill. Kreider helps us tremendously in that department, as he has them all in spades.
Click to expand...

I think SJ often is too big and immobile.

I don't for a second believe in there being and advantage in icing a team that is big in terms of avg length/weight. You definitely need big players and physical players. But a team full with 6'3-4 players would just be painfully slow.

Everyone of course also knows that bigger players wears down faster than smaller players and have much shorter prime-window.
 
Ola said:
I think SJ often is too big and immobile.

I don't for a second believe in there being and advantage in icing a team that is big in terms of avg length/weight. You definitely need big players and physical players. But a team full with 6'3-4 players would just be painfully slow.

Everyone of course also knows that bigger players wears down faster than smaller players and have much shorter prime-window.
Click to expand...

if the Rangers had a team full of Chris Kreider's i dont think it would be slow at all. Rangers need size that can skate and be good skaters. those are hard to find... id take a team full of Kreiders over a team full of Ryan Callahan.
 
Ola said:
I think SJ often is too big and immobile.

I don't for a second believe in there being and advantage in icing a team that is big in terms of avg length/weight. You definitely need big players and physical players. But a team full with 6'3-4 players would just be painfully slow.

Everyone of course also knows that bigger players wears down faster than smaller players and have much shorter prime-window.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. That is why players like MSL and Datsyuk (even though not too small) Whitney etc can play at a high level 35 and older. Zooks can be one of those players if he continues to develop.
 
DutchShamrock said:
The small players wear down faster. They tend to disappear in playoff games when the intensity and physicality pick up. If we are talking about building a team, it is certainly an issue to be aware of. In specific scenarios, like here with limited talent, you pick your battles. Zucc wouldn't be the first guy I move when I reshape the team but he's gone if the right deal comes.

York was my favorite player but he always tailed off and broke down. I hate the return on his trade but he turned into a disappointment towards the end of his career.
Click to expand...

Be careful not to stereotype. St. Louis, Briere, Cammallerri, Andy McDonald are just a few guys that come to mind that raised their games significantly in the playoffs despite their sever lack of size, and many guys under 6' are the same story. I don't think there's a lot of weight to the small players wear down faster argument, as I could come up with just as many big guys who can barely make it through a regular season, or disappear in the playoffs (sorry Nash). Point is, if a player is a good player, they find a way to use what they have to their advantage. Zuccarello the last few months has been everything but ineffective in the dirtiest areas of the ice, and a lot of that is using is shiftiness and agility that a guy like Nash couldn't in such tight spaces. Whether Zuke breaks down or disappears, I don't think, will have anything to do with his size, and I think it'd be foolish to trade away such an effective player because of long-standing stereoptypes.
 
Sometimes Zucc's small stature gets overblown, but it isn't something that should be dismissed entirely. Zucc's lack of size was actually an issue against Marchand in the playoffs last year during the Game 1 OT winner:

Zucarrello is 5’7, 179. Brad Marchand is a small player himself – 5’9, 185 – but he is the stronger player of the two. Zuccarello has body position on Marchand. But the slightly bigger player battles through it and turns a 3-on-2 into a 2-on-1/3-on-2.
Click to expand...

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/...-overtime-problem-for-the-rangers-last-night/
 
Raspewtin said:
He's 179 pounds at the height of 5' 7". Zucc is built like a tank for his size, and has impeccable leg strength. Two inches shorter than Marchand and only 5 pounds smaller.
Click to expand...

Marchand is noticably thicker and stockier than Zuccarello. I don't care what their weights are listed as, and if they're even accurate. I can see with my own eyes that Marchand is more built. And that's nothing against Zucc, they just have different body types.
 
Punxrocknyc19 said:
if the Rangers had a team full of Chris Kreider's i dont think it would be slow at all. Rangers need size that can skate and be good skaters. those are hard to find... id take a team full of Kreiders over a team full of Ryan Callahan.
Click to expand...

Kreider is fast in straight lines. It's tough for a player with his weight to skate against centers like Crosby and he likes. Brassard for example got one type of speed and Kreider another.

Grachev is another example of a player that could skate in straight lines. He was horrible in the WJC and couldn't keep up a center ice.

Today size only helps you at times. You are totally out of synch with the game if you believe that size is some kind of miracle medicine in the NHL right now.
 
Size alone isn't everything. Or even anything.

But take, for example, Jamie Benn. The amount of plays he makes with his reach, whether opening up passing lanes or tweaking his shooting angle to fool goalies, is astounding. All things being equal it is still a huge advantage in today's game.
 
RangersHank said:
Radulov didnt live up to the hype, Buffalo hates Stafford and Meszaros is ok, i agree tho. Goaltending top 10 is a waste
Click to expand...

Not to deter this thread but Radulov is a first line player in this league, I'm not sure what hype you're referring to. Just because he decided to not play in Nashville doesn't mean he didn't live up to his potential. Stafford, although his play this season hasn't been great he's the type of player this club would benefit from. Same mold as Brandon Dubinsky, who coincidentally we drafted in the following round that year.
 
People saying trade MZA make me laugh.

if he was bigger he'd be a better player, sure. So would anybody in the league. Chara would be better if he was 7'1.

But he's not bigger. And he's still a great player. Trading him would be an awful move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom