« Arbitration Wreaking Roster Havoc | Main | One Week Away From the 4th Period »

July 27, 2006

Comments

Who is this disreputable rumor monger?

Sorry, I can't mention his name. Better you shouldn't know if you don't already.

Bobby Sanguinetti passed up the NTDP to go play major juniors in Canada, that may be a reason why they didn't invite him.

shouldn't be surprised that bobby sangs wasn't invited he turned his back on the US program after initially agreeing to be a part of it to go to juniors out of nowhere. with all the politics that are involved UNFORTUNATELY in the US program there should be no surprises there at all.

it was ek...but ek didn't actually say the rangers were going after markov. he just said that it would be a pretty scary pairing if markov was paired with kaspar.

I am not crazy about ek's site. He makes stuff up. But he does have the stones to keep posting. . . .I saw a really interesting article:
http://www.insidehockey.com/greenstein/2006_07_27.php
The site is called Inside Hockey. Something like this is gonna go down in the near future. Maybe a few different teams. But this is something I never thought of. . . . .

Ek swore just the other day that it was CERTAIN Mark Recchi
would not be going to the Penguins.

His is a comedy website. He "used a brown paper bag as a goalies mitt when he was a kid and his mother chucked tennis balls at him" (sic).

You can't make this stuff up.....but I guess he can....and does. It is pathetic.

Maybe you noticed the Inside Hockey logo and link over on the right -- Kevin Greenstein is a regular contributor to Blueshirt Bulletin as well.

I just read the inside hockey article mentioned above and I could not disagree more.

First of all in this CBA you cannot eat portions of contracts so that option is out. 2nd, they are not going to give away a franchise player for a package of castoffs and role/journeyman players like Rozival and Nylander even if you throw in Montoya, which I think would be EXTREMELY foolish and a draft pick or two.

Vincent is a great player. Arguably one of the best in the league. Is he overpaid? Sure he is. That great hockey mind Garth Snow said it best the other day in talking about the players on "his" team, "they're all overpaid." Vinny is young so that doens't throw the plan out of whack but it throws the future out of whack and it means that you don't have a work in progress goaile should Lundqvist go the way of Dan Blackburn and get hurt. Weekes is going bye-bye after this season, and maybe sooner and Al would add a clear 1 1a tandem that the team could build around for years. Also, Al is clearly NOT ready for primetime yet. It is pretty common knowledge that he needs more time in Hartford which is why Valli was brought back.

I'm just fine with leaving a team like Tampa Bay scrambling to find a suitor if they are in trouble because if they got to that point, the cost of purchasing someone like Vinny would be far less than what Kevin wrote.

You would think Team USA would learn after they were embarassed this year and choose the best players available. They've done the same thing in the past with players like Gomez.

I would love to see what Pock can do with an extended look. He always seems to impress me when I see him play. His defense is a little suspect, but I think he would do alright if paired with someone like Ward or Kaspar. I feel Pock is underrated right now. I think he will surprise a lot of people with a regular shift. He'll still suffer from rookie mistakes (like Tyutin did this year). But he has good speed, a good outlet pass, and what looked like a decent shot from the point that he can get through to the net.

Chris, I agree with you, Pock always looked good to me. I recall when he was signed and played those 6 games or so at the end of the season how he played with such poise and confidence. I seems as though he regained that at Hartford last year. He deserves a good look. Also, Martin Richter is another potential sound player. Likewise, he needs a good look.

did anyone ever find out who Ek is? i heard something about a kid that worked in a mail room or something... anyone know?

Here's a quote that should set everyone straight about the signing of some of the veterans to the Rangers. This was in yesterday's Darien, CT newspaper. It's an interview with Hugh Jessimen. He certainly qualifies as a young player. There has been lots of talk about messages being sent. Here's the quote As for Renney’s comments, made prior to the Rangers going out and signing Shanahan off of the Detroit roster, Shanahan’s spirit preceded the man himself.

“It’s pretty cool, that is why I was pretty pumped-up when they signed him,” Jessiman, brightening, said. “It was really interesting, because I thought it was pretty cool the way they signed him about a week later.

“It’s a good message to me. Because that’s the guy they want there, and maybe I can sort of emulate what he is doing.”

DID YOU CATCH IT...

"...It's a good message to me..."

If there is anyone out there that needs some motivation right now considering his play and the way that he was put in the stands for most of the play-offs it's Hugh Jessimen and he took it as a good thing.

This is an important statement to bear in mind because the amount of discussion about "this is a horrible message..." isn't taken taht way at all. (Here comes an argument starter) I think that we may also be 100% wrong about the Dominic Moore trade and the message may very well be getting received that "only the best players are who we are after and it doesn't matter who you are if we have better in house or we can get better from outside the house with a different talent then they will come in and take your job, so make us incapable of trading you by being the best player on the ice shift after shift...and by the way don't ask for more money." I don't think that's a bad message and we'll all see in a few weeks what kind of an affect it really did have.

This year's training camp may be the most competitive for jobs in the history of the team. I think we're so deep with talent that some of these guys may even be fighting for jobs just to stay in Hartford and could be Charlotte bound.

These are great problems to have...


OK, Mitch, you wanted to start an argument :)

Seriously -- your assessment of the "message" may be spot on. If so, it contradicts the message that was sent over the past two years, which was that we were going to build a core from within and let chemistry play its proper role, which is exactly what happened last year when a lot of players overachieved for no discernible reason other than chemistry. We weren't supposed to jettison core players who had that chemistry for guys from outside who appear better on paper -- we went down that route before, and it was a disaster.

Anyway, Shanahan vs. Jessiman was not the message we were arguing about before. If Huge got the message that he has another 2-3 years to develop while Shanahan hold down that spot, then he got the right message, and it's probably a good one for him. The guys we were arguing about previously were guys who had already worked their way up the ladder into the NHL and were traded for guys who were only marginally better (and only on paper, so far).

Wow, the arguments in favor of the Moore trade keep getting more and more compelling. We've gone from "he's only a 4th liner" to "he only fetched a 3rd round pick" to "we only grew attached to him because of his tv commercial" to "quotes from Huge Specimen indirectly support the trade." Concepts like team chemistry, and the flow of a game, and the feel of a team, and developing from within, and contributions outside the numbers... these things, Dubi, apparently don't count for much around these parts. (Yeah, I know Lurker -- "overly dramatic" again.) To be sure, when this season ended the Rangers had some problems to address; the HMO line, though, was NOT one of these problems, and should have been left in tact, given the opportunity to build off of last year. Specimen's stated enthusiasm for Shanahan is hardly persuasive here.

Anybody hear about Weekes going to the Blues?

Geeze where to begin?

Ok Kovy hit it dead smack on when he pointed out the politics of USA Hockey as to why someone like a Sanguinetti was not picked for the Eval camp.

It is a subject that royally angers me as IMO those who control USA Hockey think that one gold medal (which in my book was more due to Canada screwing up than US winning) wants to control every aspect of a American prospects career.

Out of 45 selected for the camp only 4 played in the CHL leagues. It is a crock and why when we keep seeing others wearing the Gold Medal it is because the college game does not develop as well as the juniors do.

Ron

I got to disagree with you about that sight being a comedy site as comedy is supposed to be funny and this guy rips off people.

Mitch

I totally agree with you on Inside Hockey article. I am sorry but it is not hard for people to get a copy of the CBA and see how many points you correctly pointed out.

Rangerbill

Nothing could be further from the truth as the Rangers are not looking to move Weekes at all.

ALL

Has anyone noticed how fast the number of players getting signed PRIOR to their artbitration hearing has grown since both the Briere and Gomez wins.

Teams are very scared of what they could lose and are basically giving in to the players to avoid gambling on the arbitrator's decision especially now that gaining years is also happening.

guys what do you think of the rangers going after nagy i think hes really good he can score and do a lot more

i think calder might be on his way to the rangers i dont know why but i do cause there was a rumor that chicago and the rangers were in serious talks

i dont know anyone no anything or have an opiniun

Throwaway - I'll be overly dramatic myself and say "Get over yourself." You're saying that anyone in favor of trading Moore doesn't care about "team chemistry, building from within or the feel of a team," and that fans like youself who didn't like the deal are the ones who know what's best. You know, it's possible to disagree without insulting people's intelligence or their beliefs on what is best for the Rangers, but you've chosen not to. Sad.

As for the merits of what Jessiman said, I don't think they settle the argument one way or the other. However, it's extremely convenient of Dubi and Throwaway to downplay Jessiman's comments because, according to Dubi, "The guys we were arguing about previously were guys who had already worked their way up the ladder into the NHL and were traded for guys who were only marginally better." Really? That wasn't my understanding at all. I distinctly remember arguing about what message the Moore trade sent to ALL the Rangers' young prospects - the ones on the roster AND the ones trying to make the team in the future. But I guess Jessiman's statement doesn't fit your argument, so we're changing the ground rules after the fact. That's cool, but you should give the rest of us a heads up first.

One other point: The HMO line (as well as the second and third lines) was definitely one of the problems that needed to be addressed because the Rangers simply couldn't score once teams began to shut the Jagr line down at the end of the season and in the playoffs. It's all well and good to work hard and do the little things and "contribute off the scoresheet," but you also have to contribute ON the scoresheet as well, at least a little bit, which the HMO did not. If you can combine hard work AND production, then you've got a Stanley Cup contender. If not, you get a nice little team to feel good about like the Rangers had last year - which is great, and I was proud to cheer for them - but no hardware to show for it. I'd like some hardware.

Lurker Kev:

I like the way that you think...probably because of the frequency in which you tend to agree with my assessments probably gas a lot to do with it. Personally I think it would be so much better if instead of taking little shots or jabs at people, which apparently is the charm of the internet as a whole and not just here, we just were more respectful in our discourse. BTW, this isn't a shot at you specifically because I think it's rampant everywhere on every chat site, but wouldn't it be great if we could just be respectful of each other as people and respectfully disagree? That all being said, I think your assessment was spot on and there really isn't a lot to add to it.

Jess:
Did I understand your post and you actually agreed with me? I am so not used to that. It was a very pleasant surprise to read this morning and I thank you for that. Here's another place where we agree...

RangerBill:
I think Jess is right that Kevin Weekes isn't going anywhere. Personally though I think he should be dealt to freee up some cap space and put Valli in to back up Henke. I doubt that St. Louis would want him but who knows what JD might be thinking. The one HUGE positive in Weekes' favor is that he is EXTREMELY well liked in the lockerroom.

Lastly, I am not so sure that the Rangers are going to make any more moves. They may be listing themselves right now at just over $38mm but remember there is still the matter of signing Rozy, Toots and Hossa. BTW, Pock is also NOT signed. That should probably eat up another $3.5 to $4mm easily. You have to figure Rozy is going to get at least $2mm and Toots and Hossa are probably going to cost $1.5 between the two of them and if they resign Pock he'll get at least $750K since I think he got $600K+ on his last deal. (I could be wrong about that though). That really only leaves a cushion of about $2m. That's assuming we have to eat Ozo's salary for dinner. If they do make a move some salary is most likely going to have to go back the other way.

BTW, I would NOT be at all surprised to see Leetch come back. If he does, you won't see Pock in NY unless someone gets hurt.

No need to get overly sensitive here, Lurker. We have some fundamental differences of opinion about the team and the game, which is fine. You and I were two of the more enthusiastic posters here last season, and that enthusiasm is inevitably going to lead to some strong differences of opinions now and then. Ultimately, we're all hankering after the hardware -- just a question of how best to go about getting it. I attribute the late-season struggles more to Lundqvist's health issues than you do; when your goalie's not right, and I firmly believe Lundqvist wasn't, then your team is ultimately just spinning its wheels waiting for the inevitable. You, instead, stress the lack of scoring depth as the problem. As a starting point, this difference in focus affects how we view the direction the team needs to take. I saw HMO as a positive force for the season, not just as a "nice little feel good story", but as the type of effective unit you need to create a winning environment. I think that type of line could be a significant part of a Cup run, but you seem to disagree due to their lack of offense. I of course have no problem with adding some scoring as well, but I would have focused my efforts there elsewhere.

Let me ask one last question re. the Jessiman quotes: does anyone really expect someone in his position to come out and say that the moves the team has made is sending a bad message to the younger players, that the team seems to be moving in the wrong direction? In the interview, he's predictably putting a positive spin on the Shanahan acquisition; I maintain that that contributes absolutely nothing of value re. the Moore discussion, but again, we can agree to disagree on that as well.

Kev, I'm not going to repeat my stance on the trade because I've already taken enough heat for over-repeating it already. But it was about the message sent by the trade of an NHL fourth liner for an NHL third liner to all prospects about what exactly they "earn" when they earn their way onto the team. I didn't say anything at all like that when Shanahan was signed -- he was a replacement placeholder for previous placeholder Rucinsky/Sykora to give guys like Jessiman more time to get ready, a completely different message, one that Jessiman took in proper stride. That's not recasting Jessiman's words in the least.

Any by saying that fans haven't properly taken the chemistry factor into account is not to say people don't care about it -- it is to say that in these debates, it is being discounted, in my opinion unfairly. And it's not just Moore. I read various boards, including this one, and I see a lot of bashing of guys like Rozsival, Tyutin, Betts, even Ortmeyer because they did not do it all in their first year as Rangers (Orts second year), and yet no one seems to take into account that every single one of these guys did a lot of good things as part of a group that dramatically overachieved, esp. on team defense, and that had everything to do with chemistry as part of a system that we never had in place before.

I hope people are not so seduced by the success of last season that they think we can suddenly go back to getting the players who appear to be better on paper and think they will mesh together on ice as near-perfectly as these guys who are so in disfavor did last season. Yes, they crashed and burned at the end, but it was their first season together -- they had nowhere to go but up. Some tinkering was of course necessary -- no one laments the upgrades on Poti and Rucchin for example, Rucinsky too. But I hope they haven't taken it too far.

Dubi,
All good points. Chemistry isn't something that just happened! It was created by a coaching staff and management team that insisted on it. The trip to West Point wasn't just some exersize. When some players didn't live up to expectations they were sent packing. I'll be so bold to claim that Rucchin isn't here because he made fun of the stick salute at the end of every home victory. When players get traded you affect "chemistry". It will be the job of the coaching staff and management, working together, to re-establish this quality. The very idea of chemistry and teamwork go hand in hand. The idea that a player sacrifices something for the overall good of the team is the very cornerstone of championship teams. That's what we are trying to build here, champions. Chemistry is a fragile thing and the slightest little thing can put it out of balance but the players all know they are here to win, period. If they refuse to sacrifice their ego and therefore refuse to place the team on top, management will let them go. That's not to say that Moore fit into this classification. Quite the contrary! He was a consummate team guy and for that reason I hate to loose him. But management is charged with improving the team and whether I like it or not, they think Hall does just that. I hope they are right. The test will be the PK, so we'll all wait and watch. I'll also point out that chemistry is not something that just "carries over" to the next season. With no change in personnel (unlikely nowadays) you will always have to address the teamwork and chemistry issue all over again. Heck, you are working with huge ego's with professional athletes. So any movements of players, either via trade, retirement, free agency or whatever, will CHANGE the chemistry and that will require the coaching staff to rebuild, to some extent, that bond between players. The fact that we seem to have added players that "want" to be in a Ranger jersey should help the teambuilding effort. Lets not overstate or understae the importance of chemistry. It is very important, but it isn't the thing that wins games. Skill, depth, speed and hockey sense are the major ingredients, it's the chemistry that binds it all together.

Dubi-

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one:

The Rangers did overachieve last year, mostly on defense (like you stated) NOT because of chemistry, but because of the understated greatness of King Henrik in the goal. Chemistry helps, obviously, but when the league cannot put the biscuit in the cage your defense ( and especially plus/minus numbers ) are going to look better than they really should. Rozival is getting bashed here IMO because of his carelessness with the puck late last season. Did he have a good season? Yes!!! But was he the reason we were third in goals against? Absolutely not!!!

The Rangers had a very comfortable locker-room last year and it was really nice to see that there WAS good chemistry. But you don't have to love your teammates in order to win a few playoff games let alone Lord Stanley's cup.

You are certainly correct, Tommy G., in pointing out Lundqvist's contribution to the team's success last season. He was, many nights, the most valuable player on the ice, and his late-season inability to perform was, to my thinking, the biggest cause of the team's late-season demise. But at the same time, there was a tremendous team-effort that contributed mightily to the team's overall success as well, particularly in the team-defense category. The determined back-checking efforts of the forwards, the defensemen playing their roles within the system, the work of the PK -- all these things must be given their rightful place alongside King Henrik.

Dang it! The cold light of day reveals the tone of my last post was too harsh/sarcastic, and I apologize. I'm tired of this topic, and won't be posting about it anymore. Promise.

We should all try to meet up before a game this season, or at least between periods or something. It'd be cool to put a face with a name and quaff a cold one or two. I used to think meeting people I knew online was kind of corny, but it turns out I've made some excellent friends through a music list I've been posting to for 10 years, so maybe it's not as lame as it sounds.

Theoretically, if moving a 4th liner in Moore sends a negative message to other prospects in our system, under what conditions is management allowed to trade a 3rd/4th liner? I don't think we're going to find many 3rd & 4th liners on the team that display bad attitudes and poor work ethics.... Those would be obvious reasons to justify shipping someone out...

Does this mean Ortmeyer should never be traded if the right deal surfaces? Betts, Ward?

I think management saw an opportunity to upgrade the team and jumped on it... They knew we had some younger (and higher potential) Center prospects that would be fighting for a roster spot next season and moved a Center for a Winger...

I fully expect them to continue upgrading our 3rd & 4th lines each season even if it means moving a hard working player... The key is that we have to upgrade with every move to make the team better and I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how acquiring Hall could make the team weaker.

came across this great site on bathrooms. lucky as i was just gonna buy a new bathroom. hope it helps anyone looking to buy too.
index1 discount modular bathroom cabinets bathroom exposition index2 ambella bathroom console sink bathroom floor in laying tile tips index2 unfinished furniture bathroom vanity cabinets troy bathroom lighting fixtures fo/index114.htm>index114


The comments to this entry are closed.