ALex Bourret

[FLYLine27*]

If he was such a "tremendous prospect" you would be penciling him in your lineup next year, instead of your 1st round pick from this years draft.

Bourret is a prospect, he just is never as good as the other ones you have. He moved very quickly down the Thrashers F prospects list....he is already doing the same on the Rangers F prospects list....and soon he will do the same when the Rangers trade him somewhere else.

Pretty much all of a us know he's not NHL ready, which is why nobody pencils him in for anything. Putting him on the 4th line would be a complete waste where he should be a 2nd liner in the future in the NHL. Hes 20 years old, we'd all much rather him get 20 minutes of ice time playing on the first line in the AHL to help him develop rather then giving him 6 minutes of icetime on the 4th line playing with Blair Betts and Colton Orr.

And for the record, yes I do think Cherepanov is more NHL ready and the better NHL prospect.

Also according to us on the Rangers Board, Bourret is our 2nd best offensive prospect, behind Cherepanov, so he's not moving down anywhere after his performance with the Wolf Pack so far along with his potential.

 

[pld459666]

.

If he was such a "tremendous prospect" you would be penciling him in your lineup next year, instead of your 1st round pick from this years draft.

Bourret is a prospect, he just is never as good as the other ones you have. He moved very quickly down the Thrashers F prospects list....he is already doing the same on the Rangers F prospects list....and soon he will do the same when the Rangers trade him somewhere else.

Not sure where you get the impression he's falling on our F prospect list. If it's because of Cherry taking the #3 spot on our (poster voted poll) well then you probably do not place a great deal of value into Cherry.

The fact that he was considered by most experts as the 4th or 5th best prospect in this last draft should lend some credibility to him as a player and a prospect, and that's ok if you disagree, because based on your opinion Bourret seems to be a marginal prospect.

I think if Cherry doesn't fall, Bourret is CLEARY our #3 prospect behind Montoya and Staal and whoever we would have gotten at #17 would have been 9th or 10th on our list if not further down.

In fact after looking at it again, whoever we would have gotten at #17 would have been closer to 15th best prospect in our organization. There's just way to many question marks with some of those players that were picked between 15 and 20 in the draft this year. If Cherry wasn't there at 17 I would have preferred Espo, but even he has some HUGE question marks about his game. Cherry fell due to the country he lives in and their refusal to sign the IIHF agreement, nothing about his drop had anything to do with his skill set.

 

[Bacchus]

If he was such a "tremendous prospect" you would be penciling him in your lineup next year, instead of your 1st round pick from this years draft.

Bourret is a prospect, he just is never as good as the other ones you have. He moved very quickly down the Thrashers F prospects list....he is already doing the same on the Rangers F prospects list....and soon he will do the same when the Rangers trade him somewhere else.

That 1st sentence makes ZERO sense. What does having potential with being "NHL ready" to do?

Weren't you that mod who bashed the Rangers numerous times at the ATL - NYR PO series? You still can't give it a rest, I see.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

Atlanta is a poorly run team with a manager without a clue in what to do. He went for broke and got swept. I kind of feel bad for them.

I kind of feel bad for anyone with 20,000 posts on an Internet bulletin board...

laffo

 

[SPG]

If he was such a "tremendous prospect" you would be penciling him in your lineup next year, instead of your 1st round pick from this years draft.

Bourret is a prospect, he just is never as good as the other ones you have. He moved very quickly down the Thrashers F prospects list....he is already doing the same on the Rangers F prospects list....and soon he will do the same when the Rangers trade him somewhere else.

So does that mean that say... Peter Mueller, Jon Toews, or Marc Staal aren't tremendous prospects because they weren't penciled in to their respective teams lineups last season? Its called letting a player develop.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

So does that mean that say... Peter Mueller, Jon Toews, or Marc Staal aren't tremendous prospects because they weren't penciled in to their respective teams lineups last season? Its called letting a player develop.

Very true. Bourret needs to be given a a lot more time to realize his potential and become an NHLer. By that same token, though, Rangers fans should tone down the gloating a few notches about how this trade was a steal for them because Bourret hasn't proven anything yet and if he doesn't pan out then it was the Thrashers who won the deal.

 

[Nich]

Very true. Bourret needs to be given a a lot more time to realize his potential and become an NHLer. By that same token, though, Rangers fans should tone down the gloating a few notches about how this trade was a steal for them because Bourret hasn't proven anything yet and if he doesn't pan out then it was the Thrashers who won the deal.

yeah but what has the 3rd round pick we have given away or dupis proved to us more? we have prospects that can do what dupis did, so really is wasn't a lose for us at all really

 

[#37]

Very true. Bourret needs to be given a a lot more time to realize his potential and become an NHLer. By that same token, though, Rangers fans should tone down the gloating a few notches about how this trade was a steal for them because Bourret hasn't proven anything yet and if he doesn't pan out then it was the Thrashers who won the deal.

I agree. And it is way early to declare winners and losers in this trade.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I agree. And it is way early to declare winners and losers in this trade.

I don't think so at all. Even if Bourret completely busts, it's still a MUST MAKE DEAL for the Rangers. They really can't lose here because they were never going to sign Pascal in the offseason anyway. He wasn't even in their plans.

It was trading almost nothing for a highly regarded prospect in his 1st pro season.

 

[btn]

yeah but what has the 3rd round pick we have given away or dupis proved to us more? we have prospects that can do what dupis did, so really is wasn't a lose for us at all really

The Thrashers traded that pick for C Chris Thorburn, he will likely be on the Thrashers 4th line this year.

 

[DungeonK]

The Thrashers traded that pick for C Chris Thorburn, he will likely be on the Thrashers 4th line this year.

A former 1st round draft pick > Two NHLers, DUH

 

[Nich]

A former 1st round draft pick > Two NHLers, DUH

and to break it down further for you....two nhlers who wouldn't have a spot on the rangers because we don't need them, or one potential top 6 player

so yes, one former 1st round pick is worth a lot more to tha rangers than 2 spare parts....

 

[FREE DENTAL CARE]

Bourret

Here's my 2 cents on Bourret. He got every opportunity (early in the season) in Chicago -- second line, pp time, etc. He PLAYED HIMSELF OUT of the Wolves lineup. He was there for some shifts but gone for many others at the same time. He was taken out of the lineup, then put back in, but couldn't keep a spot. Granted, Chicago is not the best place for developing talent, e.g., independently owned team, where first line guys (Haydar, Krog, Sterling) got 30+ minutes a game (counting even strength and pp time). This obviously frustrated Alex (and others). But, that's the way things are in Chicago. He did have a good playoff with Hartford, and for his sake (he's just a kid) I hope he continue the good play into next season -- wherever he plays.

 

[Levitate]

A former 1st round draft pick > Two NHLers, DUH

Dunno, Thorburn and Dupuis don't exactly pique my interest. I'd rather take the chance on Bourrett developing into a 2nd line player than have both Dupuis and Thorburn.

If the Thrashers have different needs, then so be it.

Here's my 2 cents on Bourret. He got every opportunity (early in the season) in Chicago -- second line, pp time, etc. He PLAYED HIMSELF OUT of the Wolves lineup. He was there for some shifts but gone for many others at the same time. He was taken out of the lineup, then put back in, but couldn't keep a spot. Granted, Chicago is not the best place for developing talent, e.g., independently owned team, where first line guys (Haydar, Krog, Sterling) got 30+ minutes a game (counting even strength and pp time). This obviously frustrated Alex (and others). But, that's the way things are in Chicago. He did have a good playoff with Hartford, and for his sake (he's just a kid) I hope he continue the good play into next season -- wherever he plays.

I feel like the guy has some immaturity left in him and he needs to keep focused in order to play better, but at 20 years of age, that's not something that concerns me greatly at this point.

If he doesn't show improvement this year, then I'll get worried

 

[I Am Chariot]

There will be Bourret BEFORE Hartford and Bourret AFTER Hartford

He'll have every opportunity to become a solid NHL player

So young, so talented

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

And it is way early to declare winners and losers in this trade.

I don't think so at all. Even if Bourret completely busts, it's still a MUST MAKE DEAL for the Rangers. They really can't lose here because they were never going to sign Pascal in the offseason anyway. He wasn't even in their plans.

There's a subtle - but important difference - between a winning-or-losing deal and a must-make-deal.

It's fine to argue that this deal was a must-make one because Bourret does have very good potential and maybe they didn't want to keep Dupuis, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a winning deal necessarily. We won't know that for a few years. If he busts, it's a loser from the Rangers' perspective. Even if they didn't want to keep Dupuis they still gave up a third-round pick for nothing. If Bourret pans out the way the Thrashers projected him to on draft day in '05 then it's a big winner for the Rangers obviously.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

There's a subtle - but important difference - between a winning-or-losing deal and a must-make-deal.

It's fine to argue that this deal was a must-make one because Bourret does have very good potential and maybe they didn't want to keep Dupuis, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a winning deal necessarily. We won't know that for a few years. If he busts, it's a loser from the Rangers' perspective. Even if they didn't want to keep Dupuis they still gave up a third-round pick for nothing. If Bourret pans out the way the Thrashers projected him to on draft day in '05 then it's a big winner for the Rangers obviously.

A 3rd round pick in a week as hell draft year is practically nothing in the first place. A very low end prospect.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Here's my 2 cents on Bourret. He got every opportunity (early in the season) in Chicago -- second line, pp time, etc. He PLAYED HIMSELF OUT of the Wolves lineup. He was there for some shifts but gone for many others at the same time. He was taken out of the lineup, then put back in, but couldn't keep a spot. Granted, Chicago is not the best place for developing talent, e.g., independently owned team, where first line guys (Haydar, Krog, Sterling) got 30+ minutes a game (counting even strength and pp time). This obviously frustrated Alex (and others). But, that's the way things are in Chicago. He did have a good playoff with Hartford, and for his sake (he's just a kid) I hope he continue the good play into next season -- wherever he plays.

I've said that many times, too. And until Atlanta corrects that situation by either going with another team or something else, they will continue to be behind other teams in actually developing prospects. Their development system is very sub-par in comparison to other teams out there who have full to nearly full control of their AHL teams.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The Thrashers traded that pick for C Chris Thorburn, he will likely be on the Thrashers 4th line this year.

Chris Thorburn is clearly, CLEARLY the missing part to the Thrashers.

 

[#37]

There's a subtle - but important difference - between a winning-or-losing deal and a must-make-deal.

It's fine to argue that this deal was a must-make one because Bourret does have very good potential and maybe they didn't want to keep Dupuis, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a winning deal necessarily. We won't know that for a few years. If he busts, it's a loser from the Rangers' perspective. Even if they didn't want to keep Dupuis they still gave up a third-round pick for nothing. If Bourret pans out the way the Thrashers projected him to on draft day in '05 then it's a big winner for the Rangers obviously.

Obviously we don't get it. It appears that even if Bourret were to bust, the Rangers still win hands down! You know, because they got something for Dupuis. The fact that the Thrashers got 2 NHL ready players that fit the needs for right now is irrelevant, because lets face they aren't the Rangers.

How can you argue with such logic?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Obviously we don't get it. It appears that even if Bourret were to bust, the Rangers still win hands down! You know, because they got something for Dupuis. The fact that the Thrashers got 2 NHL ready players that fit the needs for right now is irrelevant, because lets face they aren't the Rangers.

How can you argue with such logic?

At worst, Bourret will be Thorburn. Just with much better hands.

That's at worst right now one would think when you watch him play.

Again, Dupuis was NOTHING. He was a spare part. We weren't going to keep him. We traded "nothing" and a 3rd in a ****** draft for one of your teams top prospects. Your GM was desperate and he made a ****** move.

If the Rangers did such a move we'd crucify Sather. For some reason most Atlanta fans don't seem to bash their GM for such an idiotic, desperate move to keep his job. I really don't get that and I'm not trying to bash anyone, but why do you guys all think it was some great move? Do you really believe everything your organization says about a prospect that they traded or disliked or something? Just sort of weird to me.