Michal Rozsival missed practice today with what the Rangers are calling a mild knee sprain (MCL) and is questionable for tomorrow night. Jaromir Jagr missed practice to take care of a dental problem, and Martin Straka, stricken in recent weeks by flu and back problems, was allowed to rest -- both are expected to play. Sam Weinman has some quotes by Petr Prucha and about Thomas Pock in his Rangers Report entry from practice today.
Since I go first here let me throw something out for discussion. What do you think the Rangers could get for JJ?????.....Z
Posted by: craigz | January 31, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Rangers would be the biggest retards in the world.The only trade that ever should eb considered are FOR BOTH MALKIN AND CROSBEY OR OVECHKIN AND SOMEBODY ELSE MAYBE KOLZIG.
Posted by: ant | January 31, 2007 at 01:50 AM
Don't think Sather will make the trade. His pattern is to "rebuild" and stay competitive, like the glory years of the late 90's. Also, JJ may not want to play for someone else (as was mentioned in a previous post), thus making him unattractive to trade for.
Posted by: wwwc9 | January 31, 2007 at 06:07 AM
Why is it o.k. to freely use/misuse the word "retard" without being deleted?
Posted by: chardkerm | January 31, 2007 at 08:52 AM
Jagr is essentially untradable. With his salary (the deal with Washington is non-transferable) there are few teams in the league who could even consider it. Plus he's made it clear that he doesn't want to play anywhere besides NY and would rather go back to Russia or the Czech Republic than play anywhere else in the NHL. Teams won't pay much for a guy who may bolt at the end of the season. *Maybe* you could trade him as a rental in his contract year, but it won't happen before that.
More importantly, it would be crazy to do so. Regardless of people's personal feelings towards him and his struggles this season, he's still one of the best players in the league and has figured in 41% of the team's goals. He won't fetch enough in a trade to make up for that. Remember, all we gave up for him was Anson Carter, and at about half his salary. And he wasn't 35 with a bum shoulder at the time.
Posted by: laurie | January 31, 2007 at 10:19 AM
I don't see any problem with this usage -- the Rangers would in fact be retards for trading Jagr given his salary as applied under the cap, unless they got a top player with a low salary in return. He's not calling anyone specific a name, nor is he using the term in a manner insulting to the mentally handicapped any more than if he used "morons" instead.
Posted by: Dubi | January 31, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Mentally retarded is a term generally used in describing someone who is mentally handicapped from being born with a neurogenetic disease. "Moron" has no particular group of people or disease attached. Through being a board member of a charity that deals with neurogenetic diseases, I can unequivocally say that I know many mentally retarded people who are a lot smarter (and classier) than the "morons" who misuse and abuse the word "retard".
Posted by: chardkerm | January 31, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Jagr may be playing below his potential and he may have too much control when it comes to playing partners, but he is still someone to be feared. All teams play there best defensive lines against him if they can. His problem is no second line with some real offensive upside. Take some of the pressure off Jagr to win every game for the Rangers and you will see him having fun again. And when JJ is having fun, look out NHL. Hockey isn't just a team sport like football. Placing compatable players on each line is only part of the puzzle. Finding 4 lines that compliment each other is another part of the puzzle. It isn't just putting your best players out there; chemistry is very inportant. Also, the idea of "being responsible" is critical. Each line supports the other lines and makes the whole greater then the parts. That's what you have on great teams. We are not there yet. Renney constantly harps about Pock, but I believe the team would rather see him out there then Malik. They seem to play better and Pock certainly does not hurt the team. Pock is treated like a spare tire, "if we need him, well then, I guess we'll have to play him." Does Renney have any idea how that looks to the rest of the team? Does anybody have any idea where Pock would be today if he was given the shot he earned in traing camp? We are entering the most pressure packed time of the season and this team still doesn't have an identity, at least a positive identity. The two upcoming games (TOR & TB) should provide some insight into who we are and where we are going. It's time to step up, boys!
Posted by: rangerbill94 | January 31, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Re Renney vs Ruff, I don't see Ruff ruining Pock the way Renney is. That alone makes him heads and shoulders above Renney as a coach.
Ruff isn't afraid to show a little fire in his belly, especially concerning the refs, unlike Renney. It would be interesting to see how Ruff would handle Jagr if Jagr started demanding certain player combos. Think Ruff might listen but would tell Jagr it isn't going to happen if Ruff didn't like the idea.
Buffalo has no superstar like Jagr but a bunch of above average players, unlike the Rangers, so there is no Jagr equivalent on Buffalo.
Posted by: lennynyr | January 31, 2007 at 12:15 PM
And yet, as I've already pointed out to you, Ruff played James Patrick at age 36-37 ahead of Brian Campbell, now his top power play D, during Campbell's rookie and sophomore seasons. And he did the same playing Gilmour ahead of Afinogenov trying to salvage one playoff season -- and failing. Yet now he is a coaching god -- you think it may have something to do with him being allowed to grow into the job over eight seasons? No Ranger coach has had eight straight seasons of coaching since Lester Patrick and Frank Boucher. I don't like the way Pock has been handled, but he hasn't been ruined (yet) and given Renney's record with young players and his overall winning record, there are hardly grounds for dismissal and setting the entire program back two years.
What exactly do you think Ruff would do, tell Jags to go stand in front of the net while the points bomb away?
Renney by the way tells Jagr when he doesn't like his ideas -- Jagr is not running this team. You heard Jags complain about Renney not matching lines, how he'd love to go up against the opposition's third pair instead of Chara or Pandolfo every time. OK, so this is where you say how stupid it is not to match lines, and I agree, but the point is, Renney doesn't take orders from Jagr, he just (as you say Ruff would) listens to his ideas and grants him the ones he thinks are good ones.
And he does the same for Shanahan -- why aren't you complaining about him? He's the reason Prucha was demoted, he's the reason Immonen is gone. Shanahan didn't demand anything, just like Jagr didn't demand anything -- they both simply talk to Renney about how they think things are working and how they think things should work, and Renney makes the final decisions (yes, often in their favor). When the moves favor Jagr, then Jagr and Renney are at fault for ruining the team, but when they favor Shanny -- silence. Shanahan is far more responsible for the team's problems in the past 20 games than anyone else -- possibly more than Malik, Renney, and Jagr combined. But -- silence.
Posted by: Dubi | January 31, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Dubi,
But was James Patrick, at that time, as bad as Malik is now?
Of course if you are getting some good games out of a vet, you aren't going to immediately replace him with a prospect. Tell me that Patrick was just as bad as Malik is now and you have a case. Same argument for Gilmour vs any of those AHL'ers on the Rangers now.
I don't know what Ruff would do if he had Jagr, my guess would be to piss him off more than Renney would.
No, I don't think Ruff is a coaching God but he doesn't have to be to outshine Renney. The word "grow" doesn't apply to Renney, he hasn't grown since taking the coaching job so what makes you think he would grow if he stayed on the job another six years?
Good point about Shanahan, I should be complaining about him too. There's been so much to complain about, he slipped through the cracks.
Is Shanahan the reason Immonen is gone? Do you know this first hand? I thought the reason he was gone is because Renney thought he was too slow. What did Shanahan have to do with that??
Notice I have no complaints about Renney playing Shanahan instead of Dawes/Callahan etc. That is more similar to the Gilmour situation you mentioned than the Malik/Pock travesty.
I do have complaints about playing Hall, Ward, and Hossa over Immonen, Dawes and Callahan.
Posted by: lennynyr | January 31, 2007 at 01:19 PM
I'm not in a position to compare Patrick to Malik, but does it really matter? For a team that limped into the playoffs by two points and limped out of the playoffs in five games after going to the Cup finals the prior season, surely some veteran defenseman had to be struggling as much as Malik, and yet the Sabres that season loaded up on vets for the playoff push while pushing some young players to the side (who in hindsight have become good players) -- exactly the same complaint against this year's Rangers!
No, this is not a defense of how the Rangers are faring right now or whether that's the right way to go -- obviously it isn't. But I didn't bring Ruff into this debate, I'm just wondering whether Ruff would have survived that season or the three playoff-less seasons he had later if he was Ranger coach, and whether the Rangers might benefit from a similar level of stability. You may not think much of Renney right now, but can you honestly say that you followed Ruff's coaching career closely enough back then to say that he showed the promise that is now paying dividends -- six, seven years later?
Maybe Renney gets this team on a roll, they do some damage this spring, and he solidified his position enough to have more say in personnel decisions next season. Any maybe he builds on that the way he has promised to, building a team for a post-Jagr future, and we have this year's Sabres three years from now. Or maybe this team crashes and burns, Jagr sulks, Shanny retires, everyone is fired, and we start over. I don't know which it's going to go right now, so I'm not about to propose moves based on projecting the latter over the former -- it's not worth the setback to make that assumption at this time.
Posted by: Dubi | January 31, 2007 at 01:41 PM
Lenny- You stated something in your post about whether we had any proof that Shanny is the reason for Immo's demotion. What's amazing to me, and I think Dubi is pointing out the hypocracy, that people don't ask for that of Jags. So many people on here just assume that Jags is responsible. People can dog on Jagr for not playing well, but all this crab about how Jagr runs the team, Jagr only wants certain players, Jagr eats all the pre game snacks, whatever, it's all based on assumptions. Just like "Truthiness", it's been bantered about so many it's become fact. The fact that you asked the question is why there is a double standard.
Posted by: Colorado Mark | January 31, 2007 at 04:32 PM
By the way,I do agree with Chadkerm that the word "retard" can't be catgorized as a harmless insult the way "moron" is. I'm not even that Politically correct, but we've come a long way from when that word was even considered okay to call someone who actually suffers from a cognitive disability. Not saying Dubi should have to delete posts that use the term, but it definitely isn't in good taste.
Posted by: Colorado Mark | January 31, 2007 at 04:37 PM
Colorado Mark, you have pointed out a double standard, that's just human nature.
But something a lot more important than that, it's "Chardkerm" not "Chadkerm". The latter is the guy who invented the polling machines in Florida that won Bush the election. :))
Posted by: lennynyr | January 31, 2007 at 05:29 PM
Lenny! Hilarious. Sorry Chardkerm!
Posted by: Colorado Mark | January 31, 2007 at 05:31 PM