$$$ can't buy you love: NYR of Russian league eliminated in 1st round

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
mooseOAK said:
Apart from the playoffs, Lecavalier wasn't typically a banger who went to the corner to dig out pucks was he?

If you're looking for a Brendan Morrow no he wasnt. But he has improved from his days as a rookie and will go in to the corners and get pucks. He does it much more often than you think he does as indicated by your earlier post.
 

gerbilanium

Registered User
Oct 17, 2003
274
0
If payroll makes no difference then why are the big spenders fans just ****ting their pants, lying to themselves and speaking in tongues at the prospect of losing this financial advantage that is not an advantage apparently.

I would LOVEEEEE for the Flames to be able to afford a 80 million dollar payroll. Even if they suck they will have some 'stars' to watch. But payroll has absolutely no affect because of the absolute dominating team the flames have been over the past eight years.
 

ceber

Registered User
Apr 28, 2003
3,497
0
Wyoming, MN
Tawnos said:
Teams that spend don't necessarily win.

Nope, but they sure can hoard players, preventing them from being available to organizations that know how to put together a well-balanced team with good chemistry.
 

mackdogs*

Guest
reckoning said:
So the Rangers are an exception. What about St. Louis? How much success have they had in the playoffs? How much success did buying Jagr and Lang bring Washington? How much success did buying Yashin and Peca bring the Islanders? How many playoff series have Dallas won since firing Hitchcock despite one of the leagues top payrolls? How many series have Detroit won since Bowman left despite their high payroll? Are these all exceptions?


About how it`s impossible for a team to seriously compete if they don`t spend: well a salary cap won`t fix that problem, only revenue sharing will.
No team has tried to buy a team and failed as miserably as the rag$, that's why they are the exception. The other teams you mentioned are also good ideas of what not to do but I still don't buy this theory that these big spenders don't affect competitive balance. It's a two-fold argument - Team moneybag$$ can throw big coin at some stars and bring them in and the team will probably suck because of it. Nothing new here. However Team A whom they pulled some of these stars from now have holes in their lineup they cannot replace. So we end up with 2 teams worse off then before with Team A an innocent bystander of a crappy system.

I guess what I am trying to say is that just because these star-laced teams suck doesn't mean it isn't affecting competitive balance. It is, two fold.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
mackdogs said:
No team has tried to buy a team and failed as miserably as the rag$, that's why they are the exception.
Actually the Rangers also bought seven Edmonton Oilers and won the 94 cup. They gave Edmonton eight million dollars, marginal prospects and Nicolls who was being run out of Msg for Messier. This deal also included Beukeboom for a low pick later on? They paid Edmonton a million for Kevin Lowe who was holding out.

Graves, Andersson, Lowe, Tikkanen, Beukeboom, Mac Tavish, Messier. That's 1/3 of Edmonton's championship teams.

Outside of Tampa and the 95 Devils every team that won the cup since Montreal in 93 spent a lot of money to win and were not underdogs.
 

LadyByngJeanRatelle

Registered User
Jan 26, 2003
3,096
0
Visit site
Hockeyfan02 said:
If you're looking for a Brendan Morrow no he wasnt. But he has improved from his days as a rookie and will go in to the corners and get pucks. He does it much more often than you think he does as indicated by your earlier post.

I'm not Tampa Bay fan, but I think you're even understating Lecavalier's physical presence. I think in the playoffs against Philly, he learned from Keith Primeau, that he can take over a game physically all by himself. I had never seen Lecavalier play as physical as he did in last year's playoffs, and I expect him to pick up where he left off whenever the NHL starts up again.

The guy's got a mean streak in him. There are very few players who could go toe-to-toe with Iginla, but Lecavalier is one of them.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
NYIsles1 said:
Actually the Rangers also bought seven Edmonton Oilers and won the 94 cup. They gave Edmonton eight million dollars, marginal prospects and Nicolls who was being run out of Msg for Messier. This deal also included Beukeboom for a low pick later on? They paid Edmonton a million for Kevin Lowe who was holding out.

Graves, Andersson, Lowe, Tikkanen, Beukeboom, Mac Tavish, Messier. That's 1/3 of Edmonton's championship teams.

Outside of Tampa and the 95 Devils every team that won the cup since Montreal in 93 spent a lot of money to win and were not underdogs.

In `94, the main reason the Rangers won the Cup was because of Leetch and Richter- two players they drafted after several other teams passed over them because they couldn`t recognize talent. The Cup was not bought.

The core players on Detroit`s, New Jersey`s and Colorado`s Cup teams were mostly acquired through the draft, not bought with free agents. Those are the facts.
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
NYIsles1 said:
Actually the Rangers also bought seven Edmonton Oilers and won the 94 cup. They gave Edmonton eight million dollars, marginal prospects and Nicolls who was being run out of Msg for Messier. This deal also included Beukeboom for a low pick later on?
Aahhh the Isles fan revisionism:

1. Steven Rice was the 20th overall pick in the 89 draft. He wasn't even CLOSE to a "marginal" prospect. In fact he was considered a good prospect with the potential to be a hard-nosed 2nd line scorer.

Louie DeBrusk was drafted in the 3rd round of the 89 draft, was also considered to be a good prospect, and has gone on to have a 400 game career.

Meanwhile Messier had suffered six straight knee injuries and had completed a very substandard 64 point campaign. (We know what Nicholls was.)

2. David Shaw was added to the package when Beukeboom was sent to the Rangers.

NYIsles1 said:
They paid Edmonton a million for Kevin Lowe who was holding out.

You seem to have forgotten or ignored Roman Oksiuta and the 3rd round pick that also went to the Oilers, but why let facts interfere?

NYIsles1 said:
Was compensated for when Troy Mallette was sent to the Oilers by an arbitrator. (And please don't waste my time with hindsight. They were very comparable players; in fact Mallette posted better numbers than Graves did in the two years before the trade. This is why an independent arbitrator made the deal he made. Money initiated the Graves transsaction, but fair value was returned to Edmonton in compensation.)

NYIsles1 said:
Tikkanen, Mac Tavish
For Doug Weight and Todd Marchant. Yep those are certainly "bought" players.

You'r confusing or intentonally overlooking what really happened in the years that led up to the Rangers Stanley Cup. It's true that the Oilers were forced to get rid of these players over money. It's untrue that the Rangers acquired them through money. Any team with the resources in prospects, players, and money might have had these players. The Rangers had all three and to reduce that to simply the third, money, is to ignore the facts.

NYIsles1 said:
Outside of Tampa and the 95 Devils every team that won the cup since Montreal in 93 spent a lot of money to win and were not underdogs.
True and Tampa had the advantage of going against another low-payroll team.

The 95 Devils are the exception to the rule: in the current NHL money is winning Stanley Cups.

Munchausen put it best. This isn't about what money does for wealthy teams so much as it's about what a lack of money does against lesser markets.
 
Last edited:

NYIsles1*

Guest
dedalus said:
You'r confusing or intentonally overlooking what really happened in the years that led up to the Rangers Stanley Cup. It's true that the Oilers were forced to get rid of these players over money. It's untrue that the Rangers acquired them through money. Any team with the resources in prospects, players, and money might have had these players. The Rangers had all three and to reduce that to simply the third, money, is to ignore the facts. .
I do not think I'm overlooking anything.

Pocklington wanted cash, the Rangers had it. If this came down to a straight trade without cash allowed in the transaction these players likely never become Rangers nor did they have the players to give. (besides Leetch and Richter)

Without the Eight Million in the Messier trade, Leetch and Richter have to go to Edmonton or there is no trade and Beukeboom is not a Ranger. Without the million in the Lowe transaction the Rangers do not get Kevin Lowe as a holdout.

Roman Oksiuta, David Shaw, Louie Debrusk, third round picks? Please do not make these players out to be equal value. What's next Rico Fata was a great prospect in the Kovalev deal or Filip Novak and Ulanov were equal value for Pavel Bure?

Without the cash the Rangers do not win the 94 cup because they do not acquire most of those players without giving up equal player value.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
BlueJackets61 said:
The thing is, if what I have read is correct, payroll figures aren't disclosed to the public in Russia.

And it's believed that hardly any Russian teams make money and most lose heavily, especially during a time when they can toss money at locked-out NHLers.

Got to give it to them though, they wanted to celebrate their 1000 anniversary so they went all out for their fans.
tsn reported payroll at 80 mil
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
misterjaggers said:
What Ak Bars early playoff demise demonstrates is that North Americans don't adjust well to playing in Russia. And I'll bet Heatly and the gang are happy they got eliminated so they wouldn't have to spend another minute away from their friends and families.
those player's don't slash, clutch, grab, or play the trap as well as the other's do
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
NYIsles1 said:
I do not think I'm overlooking anything.
Oh I don't believe you are. I believe you're wilfully ignoring facts to try to justify your bias.

NYIsles1 said:
If this came down to a straight trade without cash allowed in the transaction these players likely never become Rangers
Which in no way addresses the point. The necessity of the Oilers for moving assets they couldn't afford doesn't equate to the Rangers buying. In short, you're talking about the Oilers' motives for the trades, not the commodities exchanged.

NYIsles1 said:
Without the Eight Million in the Messier trade, Leetch and Richter have to go to Edmonton or there is no trade and Beukeboom is not a Ranger. Without the million in the Lowe transaction the Rangers do not get Kevin Lowe as a holdout.
Let's be clear. Without the $8M Messier does not go to NYC; he goes to Philly, or Detroit, or whomever could give the money. Adding players to the package wouldn't get the deal done.

NYIsles1 said:
Roman Oksiuta, David Shaw, Louie Debrusk, third round picks? Please do not make these players out to be equal value.
Please don't make out that they're not when they're part and parcel of larger deals.

Was Roman Oksiuta, a 3rd rounder and cash fair value for a 33-year-old Kevin Lowe? Yes it was. Edmonton may have been forced to trade Lowe because of his holdout, but they didn't take less to move him to the Rangers, and they didn't sell him to the Rangers for cash. They got what the market could bring them, and without the draft pick and 22-year-old prospect, the Lowe trade doesn't happen.

And I take it that since you've dropped MacTavish's, Tikkanen's and Graves's names from this discussion that you're conceding that those players were not "bought" as you originally asserted.

NYIsles1 said:
Without the cash the Rangers do not win the 94 cup because they do not acquire most of those players without giving up equal player value.
Agreed. None of which means the Rangers "bought" these players. Because just as the cash was required, so were Doug Weight, Steve Rice, Roman Oksiuta, a 3rd round pick, Troy Mallette, Louie DeBrusk, Bernie Nicholls and all the other player assets that went to Oilers. The deals don't get done without those players. Rather, some other team that has young assets to trade in addition to moneycomes in and trades for these players.

Saying that the money exchanged in these trades turns them in simple purchases is simply comical. We might very well presume from your position that the Flyers bought Eric Lindros and that the deal had nothing whatsoever to do with Peter Forsberg, Mike Ricci, Steve Duchesne, Ron Hextall, Chris Simon, Kerry Huffman, and two 1st round picks. It was the $15M that Quebec required that made the deal a "buy."
 

chriss_co

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
1,769
0
CALGARY
reckoning said:
OK, if the regular season is the only measure of competitive balance, then how do you explain the fact that the gap points wise between the best and worst teams is smaller over the last few years than ever before?

It doesn't matter how many points you have if you dont make the playoffs.. cuz in the end, you still missed out.. and that's what it comes down to
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
dedalus said:
I believe you're wilfully ignoring facts to try to justify your bias.
I also included every team in this but the 95 Devils and Tampa Bay as teams that used spending to win one cup or more which you agreed with. The bias here is on your part because I pointed out specific examples about the 94 Rangers.

dedalus said:
Let's be clear. Without the $8M Messier does not go to NYC; he goes to Philly, or Detroit, or whomever could give the money. Adding players to the package wouldn't get the deal done.
I agree completely. Which is why I wrote without the money the Rangers do not get Messier and do not win the 94 cup, therefore that cup was purchased.

If Philadelphia, Detroit or even the Islanders acquired Messier with cash and marginal players and eventually won the 94 cup that way I would make the same statement about those teams. It is what is it.

dedalus said:
Was Roman Oksiuta, a 3rd rounder and cash fair value for a 33-year-old Kevin Lowe? Yes it was. Edmonton may have been forced to trade Lowe because of his holdout, but they didn't take less to move him to the Rangers, and they didn't sell him to the Rangers for cash.

They got what the market could bring them, and without the draft pick and 22-year-old prospect, the Lowe trade doesn't happen.
Without the cash a trade does not happen, you honestly think those players were equal value to Lowe? Go ask some Oilers fans if that trade was fair value. It's easier when your a fan of the team trading cash to call a trade like that fair.

dedalus said:
Saying that the money exchanged in these trades turns them in simple purchases is simply comical. We might very well presume from your position that the Flyers bought Eric Lindros and that the deal had nothing whatsoever to do with Peter Forsberg, Mike Ricci, Steve Duchesne, Ron Hextall, Chris Simon, Kerry Huffman, and two 1st round picks. It was the $15M that Quebec required that made the deal a "buy."
It had something to do with the players but without the cash there is no deal with Philadelphia.

Without the cash in the Ranger-Edmonton deals the Rangers do not acquire those players and do not win the Stanley Cup. Without spending more there is a good chance many teams that won the cup (outside of 95 Devils and Lightning) do not win.
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
NYIsles1 said:
I also included every team in this but the 95 Devils and Tampa Bay as teams that used spending to win one cup or more which you agreed with. The bias here is on your part because I pointed out specific examples about the 94 Rangers.
As you say, your statement was specific to the Rangers: "the Rangers also bought seven Edmonton Oilers and won the 94 cup."

The other Cup winners you characterized as "spent a lot of money" not buying players. And I'm still waiting for you to drop your count of those seven or to address in some way Tikkanen, MacTavish, and Graves, all of whom you felt free in including in those "bought."

NYIsles1 said:
If Philadelphia, Detroit or even the Islanders acquired Messier with cash and marginal players and eventually won the 94 cup that way I would make the same statement about those teams.
First: Nicholls was hardly a marginal player, and neither were the prospects that went to Edmonton, so you may kiss that characterization goodbye.

Second: You seem to be saying that any deal involving money means that it is not a trade but a purchase. You would agree then that the Flyers bought Eric Lindros?

NYIsles1 said:
you honestly think those players were equal value to Lowe?
Of course they were. Edmonton had its back to the wall and they got a pretty good prospect and a decent pick for a 33-year-old defensive defenseman on the downside of his career. That prospect, that pick, and the cash were completely fair value. The cash itself would not have sufficed; thus the player was not "bought."

NYIsles1 said:
Go ask some Oilers fans if that trade was fair value. It's easier when your a fan of the team trading cash to call a trade like that fair.
Well we'd need a time machine first so that we could ask Oilers fans THEN if it was a fair deal.

NYIsles1 said:
Without the cash in the Ranger-Edmonton deals the Rangers do not acquire those players and do not win the Stanley Cup.
Oh we don't disagree there. The cash was as critical a part of two of those deals as the players, picks, and prospects going Edmonton's way. (AS critical, not the defining assets.) This isn't about whether a team, any team including the '94 Rangers, can win it all without spending. I feel the same as you on this, as I indicated earlier. This is about your ludicrous statement that the Rangers "bought" seven Edmonton players and therefore presumably "bought" a championship.
 

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
PecaFan said:
Not to mention the best goaltender in hockey, Marc Lamothe. :lol

Once again, the NHLPA has proven that there's just not big a difference between NHL'ers, and non-NHLers.
it just means the game is different, nhl players >>> russian elite league players.. i mean come on
 

Roughneck

Registered User
Oct 15, 2003
9,609
1
Calgary
Visit site
reckoning said:
In `94, the main reason the Rangers won the Cup was because of Leetch and Richter- two players they drafted after several other teams passed over them because they couldn`t recognize talent. The Cup was not bought.

The core players on Detroit`s, New Jersey`s and Colorado`s Cup teams were mostly acquired through the draft, not bought with free agents. Those are the facts.

Would the Nordiques have been able to keep Forsberg, Sakic, Foote, bring in Roy, Bourque, Blake and others, and resign them to big contracts and long term deals? No, thats why they left. Those are the facts.

When you can spend, spend, spend, you can keep the players you drafted and add to a core that you have develloped. When you can outbid small market teams who are trying to replace parts they've lost, competetive balance is lost. Those are the facts.

You are completely missing the point when you say 'they had drafted players, homegrown so there goes the money debate.' The Red Wings still had the largest payroll in the league. If all the teams could spend like the Red Wings with no restrictions, they would be able to keep their good young players. If the Red Wings had the spending power of say the Oilers or Flames, would they have been able to spend $70M to keep all their homegrown talent? No, because the Oilers weren't able to do that before the era of huge contracts. Fedorov would have left much sooner, they wouldn't have been able to bring in Hasek. They wouldn't be able to make deadline deals taking away other, non-playoff bound teams high priced players for their Cup runs.

Yes you need good scouting and management to win. But if you have a small market team with good management and scouting against a big market team with good management and scouting, the big market team will come out on top 9 times out of 10. That is not competetive balance. One team can spend alot to keep their good players and bring in more good players, the other can only replace good players.

Even if you aren't building a team of free agents, that doesn't mean you aren't spending your way to a Championship.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
dedalus said:
As you say, your statement was specific to the Rangers: "the Rangers also bought seven Edmonton Oilers and won the 94 cup.".
Is there another team in NHL history that acquired 1/3 of someone else's team in that short a time span and won a championship?

dedalus said:
The other Cup winners you characterized as "spent a lot of money" not buying players. And I'm still waiting for you to drop your count of those seven or to address in some way Tikkanen, MacTavish, and Graves, all of whom you felt free in including in those "bought."
Those teams signed free agents and plenty of them. No standout examples of those teams giving cash to other teams for players to put them over the top. I recall Graves was a signing where Edmonton was furious about it and received compensation. Tikkanen and Mac Tavish were the final parts and I will grant you cash was not exchanged, but the core was assembled from Edmonton because of the money going to Edmonton.

dedalus said:
First: Nicholls was hardly a marginal player, and neither were the prospects that went to Edmonton, so you may kiss that characterization goodbye.
Nicholls was so unpopular they were not going to allow him to report. Clearly his best days were past him. We agree to disagree on this prospects being anything more than marginal after Rice.

dedalus said:
Second: You seem to be saying that any deal involving money means that it is not a trade but a purchase. You would agree then that the Flyers bought Eric Lindros?
That's fair enough because there is no deal without the cash.

dedalus said:
Of course they were. Edmonton had its back to the wall and they got a pretty good prospect and a decent pick for a 33-year-old defensive defenseman on the downside of his career. That prospect, that pick, and the cash were completely fair value. The cash itself would not have sufficed; thus the player was not "bought."


Well we'd need a time machine first so that we could ask Oilers fans THEN if it was a fair deal.
Let's have some fun, go ask the question on the Oilers board and see what reaction you get about the Lowe trade. I will not post anything to influence the responses.


dedalus said:
The cash was as critical a part of two of those deals as the players, picks, and prospects going Edmonton's way. (AS critical, not the defining assets.) This isn't about whether a team, any team including the '94 Rangers, can win it all without spending. I feel the same as you on this, as I indicated earlier. This is about your ludicrous statement that the Rangers "bought" seven Edmonton players and therefore presumably "bought" a championship.
I think my statement is absoultely correct. Without the cash the Ranger do not acquire those core players, without those core players the Rangers do not win the cup therefore the cup was bought. If the Kings won the cup after paying Edmonton 15 million for Gretzky I would feel the same way.
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
I'm lost on the comparison? Wouldn't it be that this team wouldnt even mak the playoffs for many consecutive years despite having a bloated salary.

Poster, the accurate comparison would probably be the Yankees of Russian Hockey
 

octopi

Registered User
Dec 29, 2004
31,547
4
hockeyfan33 said:
some things to consider....

Ak Bars is NOT the best team in the super league.


The team that beat them has one of the best if not the best center in the entire league (Alexei Yashin)

The opposing teams best player was Alexei Yashin? Good lord, its worse than I thought.
:eek:
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
NYIsles1 said:
Is there another team in NHL history that acquired 1/3 of someone else's team in that short a time span and won a championship?
Nope. And thank you for finally changing your rhetorical stance and admitting this was about "acquiring" not "buying." I'd say my work here is pretty much done.


NYIsles1 said:
I recall Graves was a signing where Edmonton was furious about it and received compensation. Tikkanen and Mac Tavish were the final parts and I will grant you cash was not exchanged, but the core was assembled from Edmonton because of the money going to Edmonton.
Well we've now agreed that those involved in an exchange of money consist of three players: Kevin Lowe, Jeff Beukeboom, and Mark Messier. If you'd like to call those three the core of the '94 Rangers, be my guest. Personally I think you'd find it difficult to make a serious case that the 1st line center and two defensive defensemen make up the core of ANY team (especially since it was none of them who even won the Conn Smyth from that team), but be my guest to try to make that argument about the 94 Rangers. It'll be humorous to watch.


NYIsles1 said:
Nicholls was so unpopular they were not going to allow him to report.
Which has nothing to do with his caliber as a player and thus his value in the trade.

As for his best days being behind him, he was Messier's age, was healthier than Messier, and was more productive than Messier in the 3 years leading up to the trade. The fact of the matter is that Nicholls was the better offensive player and healthier overall player at the time of the deal. I'll be happy to post the numbers if you'd like.

NYIsles1 said:
We agree to disagree on this prospects being anything more than marginal after Rice.
Well we at least agree that Rice was not a marginal prospect as you first characterized him. I've gotta say, with the way you're surrendering points, I'm wondering when you finally won't just admit you're wrong on your entire stance.

NYIsles1 said:
That's fair enough because there is no deal without the cash.
Okay. If you're willing to adopt a position that extreme, I won't argue. What you're saying is that any deal ever made that involved cash was nothing more than one team buying a player. I'd offer that your definition of "buying" is laughably out of touch with reality, but it's your definition and you're welcome to it.


NYIsles1 said:
Let's have some fun, go ask the question on the Oilers board and see what reaction you get about the Lowe trade.
Ah, ah, aaah. This is why I've said you'd need a time machine to find out what people thought THEN. Time has revealed Oksiuta not to be an NHLer (in spite of NHL-caliber goal scoring hands), and the Oilers did nothing with the 3rd rounder. These facts will influence the current responses, just as the current responses would be skewed had the Oilers drafted Khabibulin, Miro Satan, Tommy Salo, Darcy Tucker, Eric Daze, Todd Marchant, Hal Gill, Mike Grier, or Pavol Demitra instead of the stiff they drafted, Alexander Kerch.
 
Last edited:

NYIsles1*

Guest
dedalus said:
Nope. And thank you for finally changing your rhetorical stance and admitting this was about "acquiring" not "buying." I'd say my work here is pretty much done.
Seems like your putting some spin on what I wrote. You can also acquire players with cash or absorbe larger contracts for smaller ones. In the Ranger-Oiler deals this is why the trades or signings happened in most if not all of those moves.

dedalus said:
Well we've now agreed that those involved in an exchange of money consist of three players: Kevin Lowe, Jeff Beukeboom, and Mark Messier. If you'd like to call those three the core of the '94 Rangers, be my guest.
Again seems like spin on your part. The Rangers core (Leetch-Richter) should have been going the other way in those cash-driven deals. The Rangers got to combine their core with Edmonton's championship core.

That's also a lot of Stanley Cup experience. It does not even include Graves who signed because of a large cash offer. The later deals with Edmonton where the Rangers absorbed larger contracts for Edmonton's veterans completed the 94 core.

dedalus said:
As for his best days being behind him, he was Messier's age, was healthier than Messier, and was more productive than Messier in the 3 years leading up to the trade. The fact of the matter is that Nicholls was the better offensive player and healthier overall player at the time of the deal. I'll be happy to post the numbers if you'd like.
Messier got universal credit for leading Edmonton to it's fifth cup, Nicholls bombed and was being run off the Rangers but he did report and play a game. It was not a deal based on stats or no cash would needed to be exchanged at all. To attempt to equate this deal by statistics is not an accurate barometer.

dedalus said:
Well we at least agree that Rice was not a marginal prospect as you first characterized him. I've gotta say, with the way you're surrendering points, I'm wondering when you finally won't just admit you're wrong on your entire stance.
Rice is a first round pick. I will be fair and acknowledge that is a fair part of a return in a trade. Bottom line as you have agreed with these deals do not happen with the cash therefore the Rangers do not win the 94 cup, which makes your stance completely incorrect.

dedalus said:
What you're saying is that any deal ever made that involved cash was nothing more than one team buying a player. I'd offer that your definition of "buying" is laughably out of touch with reality, but it's your definition and you're welcome to it.
I did not write that any deal made with cash is no more than buying a
player. There are differences between contracts not balancing in a straight trade vs outright handing other teams millions as a cash payment which is biggest reason Messier was traded to the Rangers and the Rangers got Beukeboom as part of package. This also is why the Lowe trade happened.

How many media outlets reported the second Kovalev trade as no more than a purchase by the Rangers to the highest bidder? Seems like a lot of major media were out of touch with reality based on your definition.

The Rangers even paid all eight players on both sides of the deal for the remainder of the season and demanded Lacouture who was the second best player at the time of this move. I would suggest you stop defending these kinds of moves as legimate trades and just enjoy the fact your team did win a cup using this strategy, even if it has failed recently.

dedalus said:
Ah, ah, aaah. This is why I've said you'd need a time machine to find out what people thought THEN. Time has revealed Oksiuta not to be an NHLer (in spite of NHL-caliber goal scoring hands), and the Oilers did nothing with the 3rd rounder. These facts will influence the current responses, just as the current responses would be skewed had the Oilers drafted Khabibulin, Miro Satan, Tommy Salo, Darcy Tucker, Eric Daze, Todd Marchant, Hal Gill, Mike Grier, or Pavol Demitra instead of the stiff they drafted, Alexander Kerch.

THEN... for the most part it seemed Edmonton salary-dumped most of it's team on the Rangers and Kings. As for the players you listed above they were not acquired or moved because of someone handing Edmonton a check, there is a difference between bad decisions by a gm and being outright paid to give up your best players for lesser players on paper at the time a deal happens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
NYIsles1 said:
Seems like your putting some spin on what I wrote.
There's no spin at all. You first called the Edm-NYR deals one team "buying" another team's players. I was pointing out how you've changed your characterization of this deal from "buying" to "acquiring." Your characterization of the deals has been what this whole argument has been about from my perspective. Once you've conceded that these are acquisitions like any other acquisitions on the transaction column of the Sunday Times, I've made my point.

NYIsles1 said:
You can also acquire players with cash or absorbe larger contracts for smaller ones. In the Ranger-Oiler deals this is why the trades or signings happened in most if not all of those moves .... It does not even include Graves who signed because of a large cash offer. The later deals with Edmonton where the Rangers absorbed larger contracts for Edmonton's veterans completed the 94 core.
Aaah I see. So now in addition to any trade that involves cash, any trade that involves a lesser contract going for a greater one is ALSO buying a player. Doesn't seem like there's much a team can do to avoid "buying" players in your book, my friend, because what you're now saying is that unless the contracts match, one team has bought a player from the other.

I take it that you are now ready to concede that between these two stipualtions of yours, we can fairly state that about 90% of the "trades" that happen in the NHL are nothing more than one team buying another team's player.

NYIsles1 said:
Messier got universal credit for leading Edmonton to it's fifth cup ... To attempt to equate this deal by statistics is not an accurate barometer.
I'm not equating the deal based on stats. I'm showing Nicholls's value within the deal. Your central assertion was that the Rangers "bought" these players and thus "bought" a Cup. You have tried to refuse to acknowledge that the assets sent to Edmonton were significant and therefore as important as the money exchanged.

POinting out Nicholl's quality as a player is showing you that he was a major asset and that this transaction was a trade not a purchase. (Just as the Flyers's acquisition of Lindros was a trade, not a purchase, your feeble protestations aside.)

NYIsles1 said:
Bottom line as you have agreed with these deals do not happen with the cash therefore the Rangers do not win the 94 cup, which makes your stance completely incorrect.
No you're confusing two points. My point isn't about whether or not the NYR could win a Cup without these players. My point is that they did not buy these players as you first asserted.


NYIsles1 said:
I did not write that any deal made with cash is no more than buying a player.
You agreed with the principle that since Quebec demanded money from the Flyers, that the Flyers had bought Eric Lindros. Now if you want to deviate from that principle I need to know what qualifies as "buying" versus "trading with money involved." What's the figure allowed to be transferred before you, personally, decide to call something "buying" a player?

NYIsles1 said:
Seems like a lot of major media were out of touch with reality based on your definition .... The Rangers even paid all eight players on both sides of the deal for the remainder of the season and demanded Lacouture who was the second best player at the time of this move. I would suggest you stop defending these kinds of moves as legimate trades
Hmmm ... I think you'll be looking a long time for ANY commentary of mine regarding the Kovalev trade, so I'm not sure why you say I'm defending it. If you ask me to comment I'll say that they're two completely different cases, and no assets were sent to Pittsburgh that were even remotely comparable to those sent to Edmonton. Given that, I have no problem at all stating that the Rangers bought Kovalev from the Pens. This is the difference between us. I'll freely admit when the Rangers buy players. You will try your hardest never to admit that the Rangers acquire player legitimately, especially those players who helped to stop you from chanting "1940!"

Now up until the comments I just made above, I've offered no definitions in this thread, so I don't know where you're going with your "media" comment." What I've tried to do here is to get you to define what "buying" a player means.

From what I'm seeing your definition is: "Anything, no matter how far fetched, that lets me deny the Rangers won a championship in 1994."

NYIsles1 said:
As for the players you listed above they were not acquired or moved because of someone handing Edmonton a check
You're mixing your points. Those players were listed to show you that an Oilers fan current reaction to a given deal would depend on how that deal worked out over the long haul. It has nothing to do with buying players; it has to do with how fan opinion on a trade is influenced. It was a response to your suggestion that I poll Edmonton fans on a trade from 1992. Those players were all drafted after Alex Kerch, and if the Oilers had drafted any of them, Oiler fans would view differently any trade which involved that pick.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
dedalus said:
There's no spin at all. You first called the Edm-NYR deals one team "buying" another team's players. I was pointing out how you've changed your characterization of this deal from "buying" to "acquiring." Your characterization of the deals has been what this whole argument has been about from my perspective. Once you've conceded that these are acquisitions like any other acquisitions on the transaction column of the Sunday Times, I've made my point.

Actually, you decided to create your own characterization of what I wrote. You can acquire someone via buying them from another team which clearly happened in Messier's case, which led to considerations (Beukeboom) which led to another deal with cash exchanged for Lowe, the Graves signing outright and taking on other contracts and salary.

dedalus said:
Aaah I see. So now in addition to any trade that involves cash, any trade that involves a lesser contract going for a greater one is ALSO buying a player. Doesn't seem like there's much a team can do to avoid "buying" players in your book, my friend, because what you're now saying is that unless the contracts match, one team has bought a player from the other.

I take it that you are now ready to concede that between these two stipualtions of yours, we can fairly state that about 90% of the "trades" that happen in the NHL are nothing more than one team buying another team's player.
That's not what I wrote at all and I was pretty specific about it. I can repost it word for word again..

I did not write that any deal made with cash is no more than buying a
player. There are differences between contracts not balancing in a straight trade vs outright handing other teams millions as a cash payment.....



dedalus said:
I'm not equating the deal based on stats. I'm showing Nicholls's value within the deal. Your central assertion was that the Rangers "bought" these players and thus "bought" a Cup. You have tried to refuse to acknowledge that the assets sent to Edmonton were significant and therefore as important as the money exchanged.

Pointing out Nicholl's quality as a player is showing you that he was a major asset and that this transaction was a trade not a purchase. (Just as the Flyers's acquisition of Lindros was a trade, not a purchase, your feeble protestations aside.)

There is no call to be insulting.

As to your point I completely disagree. Nicholls and whatever Edmonton got back was of little consequence to Edmonton in this deal, the Rangers money was.

Just as Philadelphia's money was in the Lindros deal.

Without the money Messier-Beukeboom is traded to another organiztion or the Rangers anti-up Leetch and Richter and no cash is exchanged at all.

dedalus said:
No you're confusing two points. My point isn't about whether or not the NYR could win a Cup without these players. My point is that they did not buy these players as you first asserted.
I'm not confusing anything, cash was the over-riding factor as to why these deals happened which is why I contend Messier, Lowe and Beukeboom were purchased.

dedalus said:
You agreed with the principle that since Quebec demanded money from the Flyers, that the Flyers had bought Eric Lindros. Now if you want to deviate from that principle I need to know what qualifies as "buying" versus "trading with money involved." What's the figure allowed to be transferred before you, personally, decide to call something "buying" a player?
I have not deviated on that point at all. I think knowledgable hockey fans know the difference between two teams making a legimate trade to improve themselves vs one that is clearly a cash-grab for one side while the other get's the majority if not all of the best players. If Ottawa wanted to trade Jason Spezza to the Rangers for Jagr and no cash was involved I would not call that buying a player despite the contract disparities. If the Senators decided they wanted five million for Spezza without Jagr in the deal and only Balej coming from the Rangers that I would say is a purchase. Of course someday you might claim Balej is comparable to Spezza.

dedalus said:
Hmmm ... I think you'll be looking a long time for ANY commentary of mine regarding the Kovalev trade, so I'm not sure why you say I'm defending it. If you ask me to comment I'll say that they're two completely different cases, and no assets were sent to Pittsburgh that were even remotely comparable to those sent to Edmonton.
Given that, I have no problem at all stating that the Rangers bought Kovalev from the Pens.
I see no difference between this and the deal/acquistion/purchase/whatever for Messier, Beukeboom, Lowe..ect. I think the only reason you do is because one led to your team winning a cup and you do not like anyone writing your team bought a championship.

dedalus said:
This is the difference between us. I'll freely admit when the Rangers buy players. You will try your hardest never to admit that the Rangers acquire player legitimately, especially those players who helped to stop you from chanting "1940!"
Then you should have no problem freely admitting the Rangers bought Messier, Lowe, Beukeboom especially when they spent double on Messier what they gave Pittsburgh for Kovalev more than a decade later.

I guess when a trades (with money the over-riding factor) happens and the players fail you consider them bought but when they bring you a championship there is a some kind of difference because they stopped Islander fans from chanting 1940?

The results on the ice were different, not the parameters of each deal which were made only because of cash. That's what you should freely admit.

dedalus said:
Now up until the comments I just made above, I've offered no definitions in this thread, so I don't know where you're going with your "media" comment." What I've tried to do here is to get you to define what "buying" a player means.
I think I explained it enough times by this point.

dedalus said:
From what I'm seeing your definition is: "Anything, no matter how far fetched, that lets me deny the Rangers won a championship in 1994."
I claimed the same about Gretzky to the Kings and Lindros to Philadelphia and they did not win so this is not limited to the Rangers. As I wrote above the Rangers are not just an example of a team failing with their spending, but one that had success because of the spending. How am I denying the Rangers won by bringing out examples of buying players? They could have spent 500m in 1994, winning is winning and that cannot be denied.

How they won is another story..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->