Confirmed with Link: Rangers trade Ethan Werek to Phoenix for Oscar Lindberg

[nyr2k2]

What bothers me about his trade is that it is ridiculous to take the stance now that Werek didn't work out or isn't going to work out. That's the problem. This isn't Bobby Sanguinetti 4 years after he was drafted. One season has gone by and all that happened was that his point totals didn't increase. He was hurt, and he was still over a PPG. And this guy played for a team in Kingston that, IMO, is not very well put together. Just a couple of years removed from being downright dreadful.

It's not that Lindberg is a bad player. I love Swedes, and from what I've seen of Lindberg, I'd take him on my team any day. But why give up on a guy that was a steal of a pick? Werek was a steal at #47, IMO.

When I say that Werek didn't work out, I don't mean he himself is not working out as a player. I'm saying that for whatever the reason, the team felt that he would not work out here--be it that he didn't want to sign, we had issues with his character or performance, whatever.

We don't know the reason why the team felt he wouldn't work out. There are plenty of potentially valid reasons why the team could feel that way, just as there are potentially absurd reasons for the team to move him. No one knows at this point what the reason is, so I can't yet condemn the deal. We've moved "failed" prospects before, but as you noted, not under these circumstances. Not a year after a kid was drafted and produced to expected levels. If we had a history of making rash moves dealing our prospects--and the Korpikoski situation was a bit different, IMO--then I'd be more concerned with this move. However, I'm withholding judgment until we find out why exactly the team was ready to move Werek.

But what if the problem is their evaluation? What if they aren't properly evaluating? Isn't giving up way too early on a prospect one of the biggest mistakes you can make when evaluating players and assets? Considering that, as you mentioned, this team struggles with their first round draft picks, it's pretty reasonable to question their ability to evaluate (especially for me, considering how much I hate the McIlrath pick, and how relatively unenthusiastic I was about picks like Del Zotto and Sanguinetti). I wonder how long I have to wait to feel like the people that run this team actually watch hockey, or if that will ever happen at all.

As I alluded to in my earlier point, I don't think we can say that we have "given up" on Ethan Werek. We don't know the reason for the move. It's entirely possible that there are other reasons why we felt a need to trade him.

Also, anything is possible, but I just can't think of a reason why Werek would not want to sign with us, although at least, if there was evidence to show that this indeed was the case, I could stomach this move a lot more.

Well, I have never said that I "liked" this deal. My initial comment was that I "have no problem with it." That's not to say that I won't take issue with the deal if and when we find out the motivation. I'm more withholding judgment than anything.

 

[AIexisLafreniereNYR]

this is going to be another trade where everyone says this guy aint going to be **** and come out and be a fan favorite.. Stop prediting the future we dont know ****.. This guy could come up and tair **** up..

 

[NYR Sting]

What irks me most is that Werek, like almost every Fronts forward, is clearly in need of a different coaching style. Not only is Kingston's roster poorly constructed, they're just poorly coached. Now, Werek will go play for Dave Tippett, who is a perfect coach to not only reign in some of Werek's flaws, but to really make the most of his excellent defensive tools.

 

[Leslie Treff]

I fail to see the correlation between these two statements. Werek could have both put himself in the doghouse and been aware of it.

I was not commenting on the quote you mentioned. I was commenting on the article that the tweet was referring to--the article in Prospect Park, which was linked in the SNY Rangers blog.

That article indicates that Werek was not aware of his situation, which was not true. I have stated above what I was told. I am unaware of anything about Werek being in the doghouse for failing to follow a training schedule--that does not mean it is not fact, just that I have no knowledge whether this is true or not.

I will say it again, all my encounters with Werek were positive.

 

[Machinehead]

I read "Rangers trade Ethan Werek to Phoenix..." and I was like "C'MON KEITH YANDLE!!!!!...damn "

 

[TrollololBoyle]

Some of you really need to let a few things go, those are:

- Do not get attached to prospects at all, they will break your heart more often than not.

- The Rangers know more than you do, don't question the move without knowing what truly happened.

- The Rangers watch these kids all the time, you guys don't, once again they know more about the player than you.

- This was NOT "trying to fix a mistake" whoever thought of that wimpy excuse doesn't know wtf they are talking about. Fixing a mistake is trading salvaging what you can from a bad trade or free agent signing, like buying out Drury, trading Gomez, etc...

DRAFTING IS NOT A MISTAKE. Teams see things they like in players and draft them, but unless they can predict the future, they will be wrong more than 60% of the time. Drafts are what they are, a few will make it, the majority will not. Once again, scouts watch these guys everyday, so stop acting like "WTF, why didn't we pick him when he was still on the board"

SANGUINETTI WAS NOT A MISTAKE PICK. SEVERAL TEAMS WANTED HIM, SO DON'T ACT LIKE THE RANGERS MADE THE WRONG MOVE BY SELECTING HIM. It's called asset management, Sanguinetti's stock was low, and instead of losing out, they tried to get whatever they could to make up for his value.

WEREK WAS NOT A MISTAKE EITHER.



I love this trade

 

[Orr Nightmare]

First, we still have Martin Biron. If he is healthy, he's one of the best backups in the game. If we don't feel he's healthy, there are always a plethora of veteran free agents to sign for short and cheap each summer. I provided a list of examples in a post on the previous page.

Brad Thiessen is the insurance policy if something happens to Fleury? I disagree; I think their backup, Brent Johnson, is the insurance policy. A team that plans to contend shouldn't/wouldn't rely on a guy with no NHL experience to replace their star goalie. Brad Thiessen may be the long-term safety net, but he wasn't this year. Or the year before. If something happened to Lundqvist, we'd look to Biron to carry the load. I think there are very few competitive teams in the league that would consider a zero-experience rookie the backup plan if something happened to their regular starter.

I don't think anyone is disputing the need to address goaltending depth in the near future. But I don't think it's urgent, or the dire situation you're suggesting. If Lundqvist is out, we turn to Biron. If Biron is out, then we're screwed. 90% of the teams in the league would find themselves in a similar situation if their top two went down. It's not poor planning, it's prioritizing needs.

I agree with a lot of what your saying and I am not saying it is urgent, I am just saying it needs to be address but let me give you a few examples:

Blackhawks had Anti Neimi and Corey Crawford developing and both are leading their clubs.

Red Wings have Jimmy Howard and 2 top end goalies in their system.

Vancouver, Luongo and Schneider and 2 of their top 10 prospects are goalies.

Sharks, Neimi and Nittimayki and Greisse Stalock waiting in the wings.

Just trying to make a point and I/we got off the beaten track.

I don't think the Rangers do a good job of developing guys...they have been better lately but I feel we give up on guys too soon.

It happened with Marc Savard, it happened with Mattias Norstrom, Tytutin and it just happened with Werek.

He might not amount to much but my gut tells me he will.

 

[Roo Returns]

Hopefully since they both have plenty of time to prepare both Lindberg and Fasth (along with Pashnin again) will be over here for the Rookie Camp the week after the draft. Get them acclimated to Coach Tortorella's rigorous conditioning program, and meeting one on one with Reg Grant to help them build their strength and conditioning. Plus getting to work with Graves is always a good thing and on a selfish note, I wanna see the three Swedes (Hagelin will be there no questions) play together to help the Rangers one day possibly form the Swedish shutdown line.

 

[bobbop]

Here's Don Maloney's take on Werek;

“As we look back at the playoffs and the size in our division and conference, we just think he’s a bigger and stronger player than the player we gave up in Lindberg,†Maloney said. “And, he’s ready to be signed and put into our system.â€

Maloney explained he first met Werek about four years ago when Werek and Maloney’s son played together in Tier II Junior Hockey.

“I know him personally and I know his personality, and I think he has the skill and the compete to score at this level,†Maloney said. “Having said that, he’s still a very young player (19) and he’ll need some time in the minors to mature and grow… But as far as I was concerned, getting a bigger centerman into our system was a no-brainer.â€

http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=562332

 

[we want cup]

Hopefully since they both have plenty of time to prepare both Lindberg and Fasth (along with Pashnin again) will be over here for the Rookie Camp the week after the draft. Get them acclimated to Coach Tortorella's rigorous conditioning program, and meeting one on one with Reg Grant to help them build their strength and conditioning. Plus getting to work with Graves is always a good thing and on a selfish note, I wanna see the three Swedes (Hagelin will be there no questions) play together to help the Rangers one day possibly form the Swedish shutdown line.

We'll see what kind of player Fasth turns into. At this point, seems most likely that if we have a legit shutdown line in the future it would be Boyle and Prust with a replacement for Fedotenko. Hagelin? Maybe in a few years it could be Lindberg with Boyle sliding over to wing? If any of these possibilities come to bear fruit I'd say we could end up with a pretty good shutdown group. And if that's the case, good luck to other teams' top lines fighting through this:

??? - Boyle - Prust
Staal - Girardi
Lundqvist

 

[Orr Nightmare]

Here's Don Maloney's take on Werek;



http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=562332

Reading this makes me want to kill Sather.

We lack size and give it away for another version of Lauri Korpikoski.

We give Lauri away and then give up a good chip to get another version of him, makes no sense.

 

[Vitto79]

Reading this makes me want to kill Sather.

We lack size and give it away for another version of Lauri Korpikoski.

We give Lauri away and then give up a good chip to get another version of him, makes no sense.

it is a good point since this Lindberg kids seems like a faceoff wizard/defensive Center but honestly guys its a 2nd rounder for a 2nd rounder and they are the same age. Who the heck knows whats going to happen

Werek obviously rubbed the Rangers the wrong way so we shipped him out. They are kids and it will take a few yrs to see if either one makes it at all

SANGUINETTI WAS NOT A MISTAKE PICK. SEVERAL TEAMS WANTED HIM, SO DON'T ACT LIKE THE RANGERS MADE THE WRONG MOVE BY SELECTING HIM. It's called asset management, Sanguinetti's stock was low, and instead of losing out, they tried to get whatever they could to make up for his value.

Good point plus they got Fasth for him already with the 5th pick which may be a steal and they have a 2nd rounder this year.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

SANGUINETTI WAS NOT A MISTAKE PICK. SEVERAL TEAMS WANTED HIM, SO DON'T ACT LIKE THE RANGERS MADE THE WRONG MOVE BY SELECTING HIM. It's called asset management, Sanguinetti's stock was low, and instead of losing out, they tried to get whatever they could to make up for his value..

Trading a number one pick when his stock was low is asset management. It's poor asset management, but its asset management.

 

[azrok22]

Trading a number one pick when his stock was low is asset management. It's poor asset management, but its asset management.

It's only poor asset management if you assume his stock is going to go back up. Considering Sanguinetti very well may be waiver fodder in the fall (I believe that he must pass through waivers to be sent to the AHL next year if he doesn't make Carolina's lineup), I don't think it's implausible that his stock is even lower next year.

If his stock is going to go lower, it's not poor asset management, it's good asset management of a pick that did not work out. If anything, criticize the draft pick rather than getting the best return on an asset that may have continued declining in value.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

It's only poor asset management if you assume his stock is going to go back up. Considering Sanguinetti very well may be waiver fodder in the fall (I believe that he must pass through waivers to be sent to the AHL next year if he doesn't make Carolina's lineup), I don't think it's implausible that his stock is even lower next year.

If his stock is going to go lower, it's not poor asset management, it's good asset management of a pick that did not work out. If anything, criticize the draft pick rather than getting the best return on an asset that may have continued declining in value.

That's not the only option. He could have been used as part of a package for an NHLer. He could have been used to move up in the draft. There are plenty of creative ways he could have been used.

Trading him for a lower pick than he was is not good asset management.

 

[Stugots]

I haven't commented on this yet because its hard for me to get excited about guys I haven't seen play at the NHL level yet. You can compare Lindbergh's current abilities and potential abilities with Werek's current and potential abilities but until I see how that translates to an NHL game, I'll trust management that they made the right decision with this trade.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I haven't commented on this yet because its hard for me to get excited about guys I haven't seen play at the NHL level yet. You can compare Lindbergh's current abilities and potential abilities with Werek's current and potential abilities but until I see how that translates to an NHL game, I'll trust management that they made the right decision with this trade.

See, that's a mistake right there!

 

[azrok22]

That's not the only option. He could have been used as part of a package for an NHLer. He could have been used to move up in the draft. There are plenty of creative ways he could have been used.

Trading him for a lower pick than he was is not good asset management.

This criticism really makes no sense.

Assets are worth a certain value. Sanguinetti was worth a 2nd + 5th round pick (assuming he was shopped to all teams and traded for the highest return, and there's no reason to believe this wasn't the case) at the draft.

Sure, assuming a perfect world where an infinite amount of trade options exist, Sanguinetti could've been used to trade up the equivalent amount as a 2nd + 5th round picks would move you up or for an NHL veteran that's worth a 2nd + 5th round pick. However, there's no reason to believe that those options were available (ie: maybe the teams above us in the draft only valued Sanguinetti as the equivalent of a 3rd rounder). The fact that was traded for draft picks that are lower does not suggest poor asset management -- he was traded for exactly what he was worth. The picks we obtained for him could also be used to trade up in the draft or for an NHLer.

If Sanguinetti ends up getting back on track as a prospect and turns into an NHLer that is worth more than a 2nd + 5th round pick, then, in hindsight, of course you could say it was poor asset management (ie: we traded him when his stock was the lowest). However, if his value continues to decline (ie: he busts or becomes a defenseman that is less valuable than a 2nd + 5th round pick) then it was not poor asset management.

The asset in question that was traded was Sanguinetti, not the 1st round pick we selected him with. At the draft last year we could not go back an re-do the draft pick -- all we could do was maximize the return for the asset we had. Just because that asset was traded for lower picks than he was selected with does not mean it was poor asset management.

 

[Paulie Walnutz]

Hindsight is 20/20, but there's a reason the team has won 1 championship in the last 70 years and that is poor management. Do we need to be reminded of the draft choices? Why is it that Detroit finds gems, Boston finds gems, San Jose finds gems? Poor drafting is a major reason why everyone here is desperate for Brad Richards this summer. The '03 draft set them back a decade, '04 missed out on Zajac, Green, Booth, Goligoski, Krecji, Franzen, '06 missed out on Giroux, Lucic, Clutterbuck, '08 passed on Eberle, Carlson, and Ennis. That right there is a major reason why this team is in the situation it is today. Unless Kreider, Thomas, and Grachev all become top 6 for us this team will continue to be middle of the pack. Flame on.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

That's not the only option. He could have been used as part of a package for an NHLer. He could have been used to move up in the draft. There are plenty of creative ways he could have been used.

Trading him for a lower pick than he was is not good asset management.

Do you honestly believe the Rangers didn't try maximizing his return first before agreeing to the CAR deal? They probably extinguished whatever options they had and went with the best one.

 

[Kocur Dill]

That's not the only option. He could have been used as part of a package for an NHLer. He could have been used to move up in the draft. There are plenty of creative ways he could have been used.

Trading him for a lower pick than he was is not good asset management.

We did get more then the Fasth pick though. Washingtons 2nd this year was part of the Sags deal.

Also Sags is way down on Carolina's depth chart. He wasnt cutting it here, and he isn't cutting it there either and outside Dalpe, they are just as PMD starved as we are. First round pick doesnt equate to "sure thing", more often then not they are more in the "high risk, high reward" catagory and are feast or flop. It's not far fetched to beleive Sags is a flop of epic proportions.

 

[CTRanger]

We tried to trade Sangs to Ottawa at the draft for their first rounder, but Ottawa preferred Rundblad and traded the pick to St Louis. St Louis picked Tarasenko with that pick.

I liked the Werek pick at the time, but the injuries have really hurt his development. Hopefully Lindberg will develope into a solid player, sounds like a good prospect from what I've read.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

That's not the only option. He could have been used as part of a package for an NHLer. He could have been used to move up in the draft. There are plenty of creative ways he could have been used.

Trading him for a lower pick than he was is not good asset management.

This criticism really makes no sense.

Assets are worth a certain value. Sanguinetti was worth a 2nd + 5th round pick (assuming he was shopped to all teams and traded for the highest return, and there's no reason to believe this wasn't the case) at the draft.

Sure, assuming a perfect world where an infinite amount of trade options exist, Sanguinetti could've been used to trade up the equivalent amount as a 2nd + 5th round picks would move you up or for an NHL veteran that's worth a 2nd + 5th round pick. However, there's no reason to believe that those options were available (ie: maybe the teams above us in the draft only valued Sanguinetti as the equivalent of a 3rd rounder). The fact that was traded for draft picks that are lower does not suggest poor asset management -- he was traded for exactly what he was worth. The picks we obtained for him could also be used to trade up in the draft or for an NHLer.

If Sanguinetti ends up getting back on track as a prospect and turns into an NHLer that is worth more than a 2nd + 5th round pick, then, in hindsight, of course you could say it was poor asset management (ie: we traded him when his stock was the lowest). However, if his value continues to decline (ie: he busts or becomes a defenseman that is less valuable than a 2nd + 5th round pick) then it was not poor asset management.

The asset in question that was traded was Sanguinetti, not the 1st round pick we selected him with. At the draft last year we could not go back an re-do the draft pick -- all we could do was maximize the return for the asset we had. Just because that asset was traded for lower picks than he was selected with does not mean it was poor asset management.

Sorry, Singin', gotta back azrok on this one.

Completely fair to blame management for the pick in the first place - in hindsight they should have taken Giroux (which is funny given that Clarke went to the podium and forgot his name they were so focused on taking Sanguinetti themselves) - but I don't see how you can criticize the subsequent trade unless a) Sanguinetti had picked up his game dramatically directly after the tade, which would indicate that they had picked the absolute worst time to move him or b) you have inside knowledge that they turned down another, better offer. a) didn't happen and I'm assuming b) isn't the case.

A 2nd and a 5th for a languishing prospect (regardless of where he was picked) four years after his draft year is a pretty damn good return.

 

[broadwayblue]

Sorry, Singin', gotta back azrok on this one.

Completely fair to blame management for the pick in the first place - in hindsight they should have taken Giroux (which is funny given that Clarke went to the podium and forgot his name they were so focused on taking Sanguinetti themselves) - but I don't see how you can criticize the subsequent trade unless a) Sanguinetti had picked up his game dramatically directly after the tade, which would indicate that they had picked the absolute worst time to move him or b) you have inside knowledge that they turned down another, better offer. a) didn't happen and I'm assuming b) isn't the case.

A 2nd and a 5th for a languishing prospect (regardless of where he was picked) four years after his draft year is a pretty damn good return.

Yeah, that's quite the return indeed.

 

[SomE*]

That's not the only option. He could have been used as part of a package for an NHLer. He could have been used to move up in the draft. There are plenty of creative ways he could have been used.

Trading him for a lower pick than he was is not good asset management.

Obviously they tried to get more for him.

Were you behind the scenes? Do you know what other options they had? no!