Phil Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 #RossWasRight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBrowningPI Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 This is how I am picturing Phil in this thread/topic Josh, what's wrong with your goats left, rear leg? Was it an IED? Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 https://nypost.com/2019/02/10/caps-and-restrictions-are-not-needed-for-every-little-loophole/ -- Interesting, isn't it? Just last week there were some here decrying the idea of the Rangers' shopping Andersson as "giving up on him," yet here are the Predators, with a more productive prospect, who has also failed to impress since being selected in the same draft, doing exactly that. No you posted A rumor regarding a top flight contending team being willing to trade their top prospect. A trade in your opinion they would make because they are moving on from the prospect before the reality sets in that?s he?s not worth his high status. Which is ridiculous because it?s far more likely they?d trade him because they are trying to win. One situation has nothing to do with the other as the teams couldn?t be further apart in goals or expectations. Because you view that the rangers should trade Anderson now which can be argued. This rumor doesn?t disprove or prove your point. It does nothing. You don?t know the preds motives so to imply anything is false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Josh, what's wrong with your goats left, rear leg? Was it an IED? Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk That’s not a leg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 I was never referencing insider reports. It was Gravesy who brought that language up a few days ago. I was responding to him. I didn’t reference anything. I said that, in my opinion, trading Andersson now would mean they’ve given up on him unless someone blew them away with an offer they couldn’t refuse, something that seems highly unlikely to happen at this point. There is also nothing to suggest this is even a discussion at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Yeah, this has become a clusterfuck of an argument. We're just tripping over implications and who said what. Gravesy, you bringing up the language of "giving up on," is the only frame of reference I'm talking about with regard to you. We know we don't agree on it. Regardless, I see no practical difference between the Rangers "giving up on" Andersson (should they) and the Predators "selling" an under-performing Tolvanen, irrespective of the position the teams are in. Both teams drafted players who are not performing relative to the hype. Both teams, in my opinion, would be smart to field offers on said players while the allure of "first-rounder" is still shiny. The Preds would simply have an easier time justifying "giving up on" Tolvanen by citing a desire to win now. Maybe that matters more than I think it does, but the fundamental facts don't change in my view: both teams drafted players with rising stock, neither of whom has performed exceptionally since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Did Washington give up on Forsberg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Totally unrelated, but a good diversion from this argument.... After reading the Larry blurb, I went and watched the last 7 minutes of the 1996 World Cup.. Start right after Foote scores to make it 2-1 Canada (2:10:40) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Did Washington give up on Forsberg? No. He was improving year-over-year, from his dominant World Junior performance through to signing his ELC. They just made a really bad trade. Tolvanen is trending in the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 This time last year Tolvanen was the toast of the prospect class. He torched the khl at 18. Then the olympics. This year he moved to North America and has become the first ever Teenage European to take time getting acclimated to the smaller rink and tighter quarters. He’s also 19 so moving to an entirely new country and culture probably has little effect on him as well. So obviously the preds are giving up on him. Also this should serve as warning to all ranger fans. That if kravtsov becomes the second ever teenager to come over here and struggle in his first 40 games before turning 20 that the rangers should trade him as obviously that will be the end of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 No. He was improving year-over-year, from his dominant World Junior performance through to signing his ELC. They just made a really bad trade. Tolvanen is trending in the opposite direction.My point is that sometimes you give up something of value tomorrow when you need something of value today. Amonte and Weight, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Happens at every deadline. I brought up forsberg as well because it’s basically the same scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 My point is that sometimes you give up something of value tomorrow when you need something of value today. Amonte and Weight, etc. Of course. This whole argument has been misconstrued. My point from the start is that trading prospects you've lost faith in isn't "giving to on" them. It's a recognition that something isn't working and can be a proactive affair in getting something that will while the value is still there. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Of course. This whole argument has been misconstrued. My point from the start is that trading prospects you've lost faith in isn't "giving to on" them. It's a recognition that something isn't working and can be a proactive affair in getting something that will while the value is still there. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by TapatalkOr maybe they didn't even lose faith. Maybe they just realize you have to give to get and don't want to move players off the current roster. Talking Tolvanen, not Andersson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Or maybe they didn't even lose faith. Maybe they just realize you have to give to get and don't want to move players off the current roster. Talking Tolvanen, not Andersson. I'm either doing a terrible job at explaining myself (very possible), or something else is going on here because we keep coming back to this verbiage as though I'm the one suggesting they have. I'm not. So I'm going to try to lay this out one more time because I'm kind of exhausted on this whole thing: Trading prospects that a team is potentially losing faith in, to me, isn't "giving up on" said prospects. Not while they're still viable. This was the reaction of Gravesy in another thread after Mike (Rhom) floated the idea of the Rangers trading Andersson while there's still shine on his draft status. Rather, dealing a player under those circumstances is more like a recognition that for whatever the reason, something isn't working, and a change of scenery, a change in personnel, what have you, can potentially right the ship for both teams involved in such a deal. This can occur across the entire spectrum of the NHL's landscape — buyers to sellers. For buyers, said player is more likely to be involved in a deal for an immediate NHL roster player (Tolvanen, Nashville). For sellers, that player would most likely be involved in a deal for another team's stalling prospect (Andersson, Rangers). But the principle doesn't change. Moving underperforming prospects while they still have value isn't "giving up on" them. The fact they're even involved in a would-be trade for something of significance negates that idea from the start. To me, giving up on a player is more like what you see when a third- or fourth-year pro goes to RFA and the team walks away from his arbitration award, after which he doesn't receive an NHL contract and ends up packing up and moving to Europe. Or, like in the case of McIlrath, when the player is held onto for years in the hopes that he is a late bloomer and is eventually traded for future considerations and/or a very low-end draft pick. If this doesn't make sense, I'll just take the L and tap out. I can't think of a way to put it any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 I think it makes sense. I don't disagree either, but I do think it's semantics. In the context of where the Rangers are as a rebuilding organization, I think looking to trade your 7th overall pick less than 2 years after the fact is tantamount to giving up on him. I.e. you no longer believe he is the player you thought he would be at the time of drafting. Or maybe it just didn't work out, for whatever reasons be it cultural, locker room dynamics or similar. I mean, it's obviously possible to find other fitting descriptions, but it boils down to the same in my book. Of course, if someone calls Gorton and offers a deal that blows his socks off then it's not necessarily giving up on him. But my understanding of the original topic was whether the Rangers should actively look to move him. We're probably boring everyones tits off, so should probably leave it at that. :palm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Yeah, I think we ironed this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Heaven Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 From Pronman's Q&A this afternoon How was the weekend in Hartford and any impressions on the teams top prospects? Hajek, Lindgren, Andersson... Corey Pronman @Eric J. Best game I've seen of Hajek's this season. Andersson was invisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 I’d love to have some rumors start heating up. Less than 2 weeks away now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Tonight Rangers will go with 4 Forwards and 14 defensemen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 I'm either doing a terrible job at explaining myself (very possible), or something else is going on here because we keep coming back to this verbiage as though I'm the one suggesting they have. I'm not. So I'm going to try to lay this out one more time because I'm kind of exhausted on this whole thing: Trading prospects that a team is potentially losing faith in, to me, isn't "giving up on" said prospects. Not while they're still viable. This was the reaction of Gravesy in another thread after Mike (Rhom) floated the idea of the Rangers trading Andersson while there's still shine on his draft status. Rather, dealing a player under those circumstances is more like a recognition that for whatever the reason, something isn't working, and a change of scenery, a change in personnel, what have you, can potentially right the ship for both teams involved in such a deal. This can occur across the entire spectrum of the NHL's landscape ? buyers to sellers. For buyers, said player is more likely to be involved in a deal for an immediate NHL roster player (Tolvanen, Nashville). For sellers, that player would most likely be involved in a deal for another team's stalling prospect (Andersson, Rangers). But the principle doesn't change. Moving underperforming prospects while they still have value isn't "giving up on" them. The fact they're even involved in a would-be trade for something of significance negates that idea from the start. To me, giving up on a player is more like what you see when a third- or fourth-year pro goes to RFA and the team walks away from his arbitration award, after which he doesn't receive an NHL contract and ends up packing up and moving to Europe. Or, like in the case of McIlrath, when the player is held onto for years in the hopes that he is a late bloomer and is eventually traded for future considerations and/or a very low-end draft pick. If this doesn't make sense, I'll just take the L and tap out. I can't think of a way to put it any better.You don't have to explain this to me LOL. If you're tired of it, stop answering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4EverRangerFrank Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Tonight Rangers will go with 4 Forwards and 14 defensemen :rofl::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slobberknocker Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 The optics of flipping Andersson just look bad, just quickly admitting a whiff on a high end pick so quick. Frankly I'm a bit surprised that a deal for Hayes doesn't happen sooner rather than closer to the deadline. wonder if the MSG phone lines are being burned up for him. Strength at the C is paramount in the playoffs, and there's more than one contender that can use him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 The optics of flipping Andersson just look bad, just quickly admitting a whiff on a high end pick so quick. Frankly I'm a bit surprised that a deal for Hayes doesn't happen sooner rather than closer to the deadline. wonder if the MSG phone lines are being burned up for him. Strength at the C is paramount in the playoffs, and there's more than one contender that can use him. Teams waiting on Duchene to set the high, and probably someone like Brassard to set the low bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.