Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Would you trade...

Florida Ranger said:
No, I would not do that trade. Who's going to be our goalie? Biron? No thanks. Need to have a plan with a plan.
Click to expand...

I dont think it would too difficult to acquire a league average starter. No matter what you're taking a hit in comparison to Lundqvist's performance, but you're also getting the most potent goal scorer of this generation.
 
No way.
Goalie is the most underrated position and by far the most overlooked. Too many times we overrate goal scoring, and nothing is worse than thinking that if you signed a "sniper" or "proven goal scorer" then he will be the same goal scoring machine on another team in another system.

Just because Nash scored 40 goals for a weak Columbus team does not mean he would be a 40+ goal scorer on a better team.

Same goes for point scorers in general.

But back to my main point,
goalie is the most important position. Who would we replace Lundqvist with? No one on the market is even close to taking on that role. Heck, Hank is in the top 3 of goalies no doubt and anyone outside that top 3 would be a total drop.
 
Mio41 said:
Great goalie > great scorer
Click to expand...

I agree.

Having a goalie who (on a consistent basis) rarely let's in more than 2 goals a game is more valuable than a player who can score a ton of goals. Building a team who has chemistry, with the right coaching staff, can score goals. Finding a goalie as consistent as Hank is a once in a lifetime (if that) occurrence.
 
Nope.

If the Devs had traded Brodeur at 31 they would have lost out on 300 + wins. Which scoring Wing would have been worth it back then? No one.
 
Goalie is the most important position, no doubt, but, you'd basically be trading for 7 years worth of time in addition to getting one of the best pure goal scorers in the game.

pretty fair value imho...just thought it would make a good discussion ;-)

and it seems it has.
 
Bluenote13 said:
Nope.

If the Devs had traded Brodeur at 31 they would have lost out on 300 + wins. Which scoring Wing would have been worth it back then? No one.
Click to expand...

Brodeur is an exception. Normally, the age of 35 and beyond is not kind for goaltenders.

I do worry about Lundqvist as he gets into his mid 30's. Hes a guy that plays very deep in his net -- and a lot of his success is built upon his reflexes and amazing side to side movement generated by his legs. Two things that are bound to deteriorate at some point.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Brodeur is an exception. Normally, the age of 35 and beyond is not kind for goaltenders.

I do worry about Lundqvist as he gets into his mid 30's. Hes a guy that plays very deep in his net -- and a lot of his success is built upon his reflexes and amazing side to side movement generated by his legs. Two things that are bound to deteriorate at some point.
Click to expand...

This is a different age. And if Hank is also an exception in all other areas, maybe the same with health.

The training, equipment, nutrition, and everything else that matters has improved significantly. Hank's been pretty healthy(knock on wood). His parents were accomplished atheletes well into their 40's. I don't see him slowing down anytime soon.

And really, you think Stamkos being the marked man that he is will be perfectly healthy all those years?

In the end I take the leader and performer I know.
 
Hell no. That helps us in no way. We'd then have no goalie. Yeah that offensive beast but now the back end is vulnerable in so many ways.
 
Bluenote13 said:
This is a different age. And if Hank is also an exception in all other areas, maybe the same with health.

The training, equipment, nutrition, and everything else that matters has improved significantly. Hank's been pretty healthy(knock on wood). His parents were accomplished atheletes well into their 40's. I don't see him slowing down anytime soon.

And really, you think Stamkos being the marked man that he is will be perfectly healthy all those years?

In the end I take the leader and performer I know.
Click to expand...

I have feeling that Stamkos over the next 8 years, Stamkos will be better as his position than Lundqvist will be at his position.
 
love hank, but you make that trade 8 days a week if you're the rangers. tampa wouldn't even consider it though, sadly.
 
Crease said:
I have feeling that Stamkos over the next 8 years, Stamkos will be better as his position than Lundqvist will be at his position.
Click to expand...

If I'm trading a goalie like Hank, I'd want a player that plays both ends of the ice like a beast. Stamkos is a scorer, a great one, give us a great PP, but when we lose 6-4 it won't matter.

Scoring can be found/traded for/drafted, getting a goalie like Hank is one in a million shot.
 
Bluenote13 said:
If I'm trading a goalie like Hank, I'd want a player that plays both ends of the ice like a beast. Stamkos is a scorer, a great one, give us a great PP, but when we lose 6-4 it won't matter.

Scoring can be found/traded for/drafted, getting a goalie like Hank is one in a million shot.
Click to expand...

we don't lose games 6-4 when we have a guy with the lincoln tunnel as his 5-hole in net. why would we do so when adding a guy like Stamkos?
 
Jesus christ ask me to slice off my left nut to save my left leg why dont you!? Leg is harder to replace then testicle so yes I'll slice the nut...sry hank. It is really REALLY going to hurt though
 
egelband said:
not by the rangers.
Click to expand...

This century, our 1st and 2nd round draft picks consist of:

Goaltenders Dan Blackburn, Al Montoya, Antoine Lafleur
Defencemen Filip Novak, Fedor Tyutin, Ivan Baranka, Marc Staal, Michael Sauer, Bob Sanguinetti, Michael Del Zotto, Dylan McIlrath, Brady Skjei
Forwards Lee Falardeau, Hugh Jessiman, Lauri Korpikoski, Darin Olver, Dane Byers, Bruce Graham, Brandon Dubinsky, Marc-Andre Cliche, Artem Anisimov, Alexei Cherepanov, Derek Stepan, Chris Kreider, Ethan Werek, Christian Thomas, JT Miller, Boo Nieves


Look at the list of forwards we drafted, but only Dubinsky, Anisimov and Stepan have had some kind of success for the Rangers. That's just not enough. Defensively, we have more success drafting. What is the reason for this?
 
over the last 2 years, Biron, a very mediocre goalie imho has appeared in 27 games (starting or in relief)

he hasn't given up 6 goals even once in that time.

5 once, 4 4 times, and the rest has been 3 or less

you *could* make the argument we'd lose games 4-3...or 3-2...but 6-4? ridiculous.
 
Bluenote13 said:
Nope.

If the Devs had traded Brodeur at 31 they would have lost out on 300 + wins. Which scoring Wing would have been worth it back then? No one.
Click to expand...

Generally using one of the greatest outliers in pro sports history isn't a good way to support your arguement but I can't argue if you think Hank will continue to shine well into his late 30's. i believe and hope he will too.
 
I thought about making a 30 year old Hasek-trade-for-young-Jagr comparison, but to me the major difference is that while Hank
s numbers are similar to Hasek's, Hasek did it in a time when he was so far different from the rest of the league that the aforementioned stat of goal difference would have been much bigger.

There are a lot of very competent goaltenders with big contracts who are seen as having no value. Luongo. Fleury. Look at how quickly JS Giguere became considered an albatross.

I love Hank. He is the franchise. But, in terms of real value, if we are being cold and heartless, this isn't even close. Stamkos will be a hall of famer, and very possibly could hit 700 goals in his career. He'd bump the NYR power play to 20%.
 
Fitzy said:
I thought about making a 30 year old Hasek-trade-for-young-Jagr comparison, but to me the major difference is that while Hank
s numbers are similar to Hasek's, Hasek did it in a time when he was so far different from the rest of the league that the aforementioned stat of goal difference would have been much bigger.

There are a lot of very competent goaltenders with big contracts who are seen as having no value. Luongo. Fleury. Look at how quickly JS Giguere became considered an albatross.

I love Hank. He is the franchise. But, in terms of real value, if we are being cold and heartless, this isn't even close. Stamkos will be a hall of famer, and very possibly could hit 700 goals in his career. He'd bump the NYR power play to 20%.
Click to expand...

I don't think1 player would, but I think if he was here, it'd give the offense another dimension to do so
 
The trade of that sort will be on the table, cause I am positive King will leave Broadway on his own next summer, if kept.
Basically, you need Lundqvist for only one reason - to win SC. To be a perenial playoff team you need Stamkos, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk or any other elite scorer better than Nash or equal. The difference between making POs and win the Cup is huge. In addition Lundqvist being a better goalie than Luongo do not have a better record for playoff performance.
Since Rangers will not win a SC in my lifetime due to MSG buisness model for the Rangers, I would go for such thing. The benefit would be similar to what Ed Giacomin trade brought.
 
Last edited:
Guess What said:
I don't think1 player would, but I think if he was here, it'd give the offense another dimension to do so
Click to expand...

1 player can indeed have that effect on the PP. Jagr had a hand in 63% of the team's PP goals in 2005-06. They finished with 8th best PP in the league that year.
 
Fitzy said:
I thought about making a 30 year old Hasek-trade-for-young-Jagr comparison, but to me the major difference is that while Hank
s numbers are similar to Hasek's, Hasek did it in a time when he was so far different from the rest of the league that the aforementioned stat of goal difference would have been much bigger.

There are a lot of very competent goaltenders with big contracts who are seen as having no value. Luongo. Fleury. Look at how quickly JS Giguere became considered an albatross.

I love Hank. He is the franchise. But, in terms of real value, if we are being cold and heartless, this isn't even close. Stamkos will be a hall of famer, and very possibly could hit 700 goals in his career. He'd bump the NYR power play to 20%.
Click to expand...

I think Hank for Kovalchuk would be not only equal , but also doable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom