In a month - or hell, even two days from now - this all could be seen as stupid speculation, but it's worth bringing up.
Questions:1) Is it worth trading a player valuable to the Rangers for the next 5 seasons today to acquire Mats Sundin for (at most) a year and a half?
2) Is it worth trading a few interchangeable parts to get Sundin for this year and maybe next year? Answers:1) Absolutely not.2) Absolutely.
Let's start with the second question. Right now, Petr Prucha and Dan Fritsche are in limbo. They aren't playing, when they do it's 10 minutes or less a night, and they don't get valuable shifts. Getting rid of them (although I do have a man-love with Prucha) is a simple solution and we would hope they find success elsewhere.
Waiving Dmitri Kalinin also wouldn't hurt the team. Corey Potter could step in, and honestly, I don't think there's any way he could be worse than Kalinin has been unless Potter breaks his leg (and then he would still only be slightly worse than a healthy Kalinin).
But say Sundin wants more than that could free up. Should Scott Gomez or Chris Drury be traded? (Let's be honest here, there will be no takers for Wade Redden or Michal Rozsival - even after Rozy's incredible penalty shot goal.) Absolutely not.
The Rangers of the past would mortgage their future for a jaded shot at a Stanley Cup. It worked in 1994 when Tony Amonte, Todd Marchant, and Doug Weight were traded away. It failed every single year since. Remember when Marc Savard was traded for Jan Freakin' Hlavac?
Gomez and Drury make up the core of this team, like it or not. They might not always produce incredible numbers on this low-scoring team, but they are the leaders. Gomez is the playmaker and one of the only players who can move the puck up ice and not give it away. Chris Drury is there for the playoffs. Okay, maybe last year wasn't a great example, but still.
Plus, when you take one of them away, this team is not a real Cup contender if they even are with them on it. Why would Sundin be brought in to REPLACE one of them (unless it's to remove them from the salary cap - highly unlikely though). He is there to COMPLIMENT them, to relieve pressure on their lines so they can score more easily.
Getting rid of bit players makes sense, especially ones who aren't playing now (or Nigel Dawes) but Sundin is not a replacement for a major player.
But hey, he might choose Vancouver, or Toronto, or Montreal, and this post could get deleted.
Original Story:
http://www.nyhockeyrivalry.com/2008/1...
Questions:1) Is it worth trading a player valuable to the Rangers for the next 5 seasons today to acquire Mats Sundin for (at most) a year and a half?
2) Is it worth trading a few interchangeable parts to get Sundin for this year and maybe next year? Answers:1) Absolutely not.2) Absolutely.
Let's start with the second question. Right now, Petr Prucha and Dan Fritsche are in limbo. They aren't playing, when they do it's 10 minutes or less a night, and they don't get valuable shifts. Getting rid of them (although I do have a man-love with Prucha) is a simple solution and we would hope they find success elsewhere.
Waiving Dmitri Kalinin also wouldn't hurt the team. Corey Potter could step in, and honestly, I don't think there's any way he could be worse than Kalinin has been unless Potter breaks his leg (and then he would still only be slightly worse than a healthy Kalinin).
But say Sundin wants more than that could free up. Should Scott Gomez or Chris Drury be traded? (Let's be honest here, there will be no takers for Wade Redden or Michal Rozsival - even after Rozy's incredible penalty shot goal.) Absolutely not.
The Rangers of the past would mortgage their future for a jaded shot at a Stanley Cup. It worked in 1994 when Tony Amonte, Todd Marchant, and Doug Weight were traded away. It failed every single year since. Remember when Marc Savard was traded for Jan Freakin' Hlavac?
Gomez and Drury make up the core of this team, like it or not. They might not always produce incredible numbers on this low-scoring team, but they are the leaders. Gomez is the playmaker and one of the only players who can move the puck up ice and not give it away. Chris Drury is there for the playoffs. Okay, maybe last year wasn't a great example, but still.
Plus, when you take one of them away, this team is not a real Cup contender if they even are with them on it. Why would Sundin be brought in to REPLACE one of them (unless it's to remove them from the salary cap - highly unlikely though). He is there to COMPLIMENT them, to relieve pressure on their lines so they can score more easily.
Getting rid of bit players makes sense, especially ones who aren't playing now (or Nigel Dawes) but Sundin is not a replacement for a major player.
But hey, he might choose Vancouver, or Toronto, or Montreal, and this post could get deleted.
Original Story:
http://www.nyhockeyrivalry.com/2008/1...
|
December 18, 2008
