Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Trade Rumors/Speculation Thread Part IV: Yak Yak Yak Yak

  • 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.
Koekkoek4U said:
This thread was originally discussing the players we could get from a trade with DZ straight up.
Click to expand...

Exactamundo.

Koekkoek4U said:
If his value was positive we could receive a better deal than if it was negative.
Click to expand...

Groundbreaking discovery.

Koekkoek4U said:
I said as of right now it is on the cusp of being negative (referring to this season) because I have not been impressed with him.
Click to expand...

Define negative value for me.

Koekkoek4U said:
I see why you guys were trying to tell me his milestones as a counter example but I already know about it.
Click to expand...

If you already knew about this, one would imagine you would know that a player that young, and that accomplished, isn't close to being on the cusp of anything.

Koekkoek4U said:
All I was trying to say in my original post was that his trade value would be higher if his play has been better this year.
Click to expand...

That's usually the way it goes.

Koekkoek4U said:
I don't know how I'm supposed to use a draft pick as an example?
Click to expand...

It's not that hard. I even provided an example you can use. Follow the template and it will lead you to the promise-land.
 
This MDZ trade discussion is pointless if you ask me, and there isnt much interest in a bottom pairing defenseman anyway.

AV said why he's out a game or two, he needs to play better. As you know, Zucc got the same treatment, then most of you thought the waiver list was next :laugh:
 
I guess what I mean by negative value is not what is entirely correct, what I meant by is that there's more of a chance to get 2 players that equal dz's playing ability and would fit into our roster better than just a straight up 1 for 1 trade.

So my definition of negative value wasnt correct and if you think that I meant negative value by lets say getting Del Zotto for like a 6th round pick than that's not what I meant at all
 
Koekkoek4U said:
I guess what I mean by negative value is not what is entirely correct, what I meant by is that there's more of a chance to get 2 players that equal dz's playing ability and would fit into our roster better than just a straight up 1 for 1 trade.

So my definition of negative value wasnt correct and if you think that I meant negative value by lets say getting Del Zotto for like a 6th round pick than that's not what I meant at all
Click to expand...
Reasonable. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Sorry for any confusion, I guess I just meant something else by negative value.

Let the trade discussion resume!


(Please)
 
Boom Boom Geoffrion said:
MDZ + Brassard + 2nd 2014 + 2nd 2015

Yakupov + Petry +1st 2014


:)
Click to expand...

I've been defending Brassard this entire thread haha. I love his style of play and I understand our abundance of Centers but I think he's just a perfect addition to the team and our PP. With more time, he could easily be one of our best players.

with that being said

MDZ + 2nd 2014


Palmieri + Vatanen


(as much as I would love Yakupov)
 
If they move Brassard they HAVE TO get a young top 6 center back ala another Stepan.

Not opposed to it but they have to realize they would be moving into next season with 1 NHL center if they don't resign Boyle or Moore.
 
NYR Viper said:
Only of he had resigned. They have that pick. I believe they don't have their 5th?
Click to expand...

That is correct (or if we had won in the second round last postseason).

If Clowe re-signs with the Rangers or the team wins two playoff rounds, the pick remains New York's 2014 second-round selection.

If neither occurs, the pick becomes New York's fifth-round 2014 selection.
Click to expand...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=419716

Still a terrible trade, but at least we get to keep our 2014 2nd rounder and watch a local rival get saddled with Clowe's contract.
 
Boom Boom Geoffrion said:
I don't think any Rangers fan is. But that doesn't mean MDZ is on the cusp of having negative value, which is the point we're all trying to make.
Click to expand...

MDZs play this year has not been impressive. There ya go


MDZ for Purcell straight up if TB is willing although it's unlikely due to Stamkos' situation. I'd be more than happy with that return

Nash-Brassard-Purcell
Hagelin-Stepan-Kreider
Zucc-Richards-Callahan
Pouliot-Boyle-Moore

:naughty:
 
WojtekGoalski said:
MDZs play this year has not been impressive. There ya go


MDZ for Purcell straight up if TB is willing although it's unlikely due to Stamkos' situation. I'd be more than happy with that return

Nash-Brassard-Purcell
Hagelin-Stepan-Kreider
Zucc-Richards-Callahan
Pouliot-Boyle-Moore

:naughty:
Click to expand...

Nash is better on the RW than the LW. Purcell is pretty expensive.

I'd rather get in at the ground level on a young power forward.
 
shinchanyo said:
Even though koek said a few unreasonable things he clarified and made them reasonable enough since they are just his opinions in the end. Whenever Boom gets so obnoxious that it's annoying I look back at this classic and reason that at least it can be turned into a positive on occasion

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=716633
Click to expand...

:laugh: :handclap:


I still have respect for all Ranger fans though. Hope there are no hard feelings, we're all NYR fam here right?! LGR!
 
NYR Viper said:
Nash is better on the RW than the LW. Purcell is pretty expensive.

I'd rather get in at the ground level on a young power forward.
Click to expand...

I prefer Nash at RW too, but he himself has said he's fine at either wing. I'd rather have the proven commodity honestly. That is one deep ass group of forwards right there

All depends if Falk can eat 12 minutes a night reliably though. Unless we have someone else we plan on bringing up to play 3rd pairing minutes. And IF we do move MDZ, we better pray we don't lose and Dmen to injury for any extended period of time
 
WojtekGoalski said:
I prefer Nash at RW too, but he himself has said he's fine at either wing. I'd rather have the proven commodity honestly. That is one deep ass group of forwards right there

All depends if Falk can eat 12 minutes a night reliably though. Unless we have someone else we plan on bringing up to play 3rd pairing minutes. And IF we do move MDZ, we better pray we don't lose and Dmen to injury for any extended period of time
Click to expand...

Purcell is a good player who rides shotgun with Stamkos.

I'd rather get Connolly and let him work himself into the top 6 and get a young dman prospect or pick.
 
NYR Viper said:
Purcell is a good player who rides shotgun with Stamkos.

I'd rather get Connolly and let him work himself into the top 6 and get a young dman prospect or pick.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I feel. Connolly is his own man and he controls the puck very well and makes smart decisions offensively and defensively. We need a two way forward type player like him. Purcell always flourished because of Stamkos.
 
If you need more fuel Boom Boom was in love with Higgins and argued with me to no end that he would be a good player for the Rangers. :sarcasm:
 
WojtekGoalski said:
MDZs play this year has not been impressive. There ya go


MDZ for Purcell straight up if TB is willing although it's unlikely due to Stamkos' situation. I'd be more than happy with that return

Nash-Brassard-Purcell
Hagelin-Stepan-Kreider
Zucc-Richards-Callahan
Pouliot-Boyle-Moore

:naughty:
Click to expand...
Purcell is a LW.
 
WojtekGoalski said:
MDZs play this year has not been impressive. There ya go


MDZ for Purcell straight up if TB is willing although it's unlikely due to Stamkos' situation. I'd be more than happy with that return

Nash-Brassard-Purcell
Hagelin-Stepan-Kreider
Zucc-Richards-Callahan
Pouliot-Boyle-Moore

:naughty:
Click to expand...

If you're putting Nash and Purcell with Brassard anyway, why the hell are you breaking up the other 2 lines? Just to break them up?
 
NYR Viper said:
Purcell is a good player who rides shotgun with Stamkos.

I'd rather get Connolly and let him work himself into the top 6 and get a young dman prospect or pick.
Click to expand...

This is definitely not a bad way to go either granted Connolly is close to a sure thing. I'm honestly not familiar with him other than his stat line which I will assume he is better than

Koekkoek4U said:
Exactly how I feel. Connolly is his own man and he controls the puck very well and makes smart decisions offensively and defensively. We need a two way forward type player like him. Purcell always flourished because of Stamkos.
Click to expand...

I don't think Purcell would have a problem flourishing with Nash

BrianBoyle said:
Purcell is a LW.
Click to expand...

Even better. Switch Nash to RW and he can play LW

SnowblindNYR said:
If you're putting Nash and Purcell with Brassard anyway, why the hell are you breaking up the other 2 lines? Just to break them up?
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't put much thought into the combos past Purcell/Brassard/Nash and having Richards center the third line. I'll leave the rest to AV :yo:
 
To be completely honest, I'd love if we could make a deal with TB but I don't think it will happen mostly because of the Stamkos issue. They're number 1 in the EC right now and I don't think they want to risk that even though they may not maintain that position. Remember when we were number 1 in the Eastern Conference? Did we make any deal without mentioning the names Mike Rupp or John Scott? Not until the offseason.

Let's focus more on teams like Florida, Edmonton, and Ottawa that MDZ would fit well with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom