ck5523 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 wondering if ti possible that we could trade dags to the rangers for jamie lundmark??? rumor has it that he is on the blocks in NY?? any thoughts? I am new to this so if I make any mistakes pls feel free to let me know.....:ghg: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 He doesn't have much trade value so it doesn't matter. He has to score a couple of goals before abny team'll want him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Napier Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 If Lundmark is available I would take that trade. He's young with potential and he has great speed which is very important these days. Doesn't look like Dags is going to crack this line-up so we should try to get something for him even if Lundmark has to go to the Bulldogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Lundmark is tough too. It's good trade but why would the Rangers want Dagenais? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ck5523 Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just thought with the history that BG and the rangers have in trading with each other it would be a great trade for both teams..... anyone know how much lundmark makes this year??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Napier Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I don't know. I'm just answering his question. Perhaps they want a guy who can shoot the puck for Jagr to set up. Who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 $550,000. The same as Dagenais. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ck5523 Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 ok so it has no influnce on the cap and lundmark is also another right handed shot that we need.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 He's a guy that would help us but why would the Rangers take Dagenais? He's not their type of player. They like speed, energy and skill-handling where Dagenais is lazy and slow. They'd want a draft pick with him. Maybe we can trade a fifth rounder for him. NYR already lost that pick by packaging it with Balej to get Fedorov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ck5523 Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 over the years of following hockey i have seen the arngers do some very confusing deals, this could be another one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Napier Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Like I said they're thinking could be be based around the thought that Jagr and Rucinsky would carry the most of the play and Dags could be used as a set up man with his good shot. I've seen lines built aroung this strategy. I question the deal however as it doesn't sound all that likely. Just trying to reason why the Rags might want him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 The Rangers already have to great scoring lines. Dagenais doesn't belong on a checking line. And by set-up I hope you mean he's the guy they set up not the one who sets them up. Either way that means you're taking away goals from snipers like Jagr and Rucinsky and counting on Dagenais to supply them. You need atleast a half-decent player to take that role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Lundmark would be a decent pick up, but it'll cost more than Dagenais. Infact, I doubt Slats has any interest in Pierre The Weak. On another note, I've heard rumours the Habs are interested in Tomas Kolouck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Napier Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by Bulis_the_Habbie And by set-up I hope you mean he's the guy they set up not the one who sets them up. Well I think that was obvious when I said he had a great shot.....not a great pass :eyes:. Either way that means you're taking away goals from snipers like Jagr and Rucinsky That makes no sense. If they're setting up Dags they're still getting points aren't they?? Besides I wouldn't exactly call Rucinsky a sniper any more...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howie_Morenz Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Is it really time to totally give up on Pierre Dagenais? In one full year with the habs 50 games he got 17 goals and was a +15. Now I know this is not great stats but it is not all that bad. Sometimes you can make a trade that is not worth making. If everyone slags this guy on here then he must be so bad that you can only get a bucket of pucks for him. If Montreal trades Dagenais, I would rather see a draft pick coming back and give the icetime opportunity to our current lineup. I dont want someone elses rejects because you are just trading a project player for another project player. Sort of like the Hossa trade which should have been a draft pick instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Dags will need to adapt to the new NHL style before he gets any trade value. Once he keeps his penalty minutes down and scores a few goals he may have some use to a team without a scoring second line. Everyone knows he can shoot and shoot well, but he will need to at least form a bit of an all around game before we can move him. And then there is the Ribiero factor. Hopefully he treats any Dags trade like a professional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Crunch Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I would not be in favor of trading Dags right now. Remember, you have to sell high and buy low! His +15 +/- was based on the line's puck possesion skills. Ryder and Ribs better bring their game up before the trends start to appear again. Goals are the same things with Dags. He is a finisher, not a playmaker. The things than worries me most is that its actually Dags replacement (i.e. Higgins) that did the best in terms of puck possesion on the second line. Yes we trade Dags, but not untill his two linemates bring back 2003-2004's chemistry. I believe it should happen after about 10 games into the season. With Ryder and Ribeiro bringing back the puck possesion aspect (Ryder in the corner and Ribs decking and passing), Dags is going to start scoring. Now you wait 10 more games for him to "do his thing" and start having a bit more credit. After 20 games or so you trade Dags. Not for another player but for a Draft pick. I believe our young guns can take the slack and that we have to think about replenishing our pipeline. Of course, one might wonder why we should trade Dags once he starts scoring... We just have to remember his many weaknesses long enough for his stock to rise a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Interesting as per earlier discussion in another thread. Dags is +15 while Ribs was -3. It would be informative to see Ribeiro's +/- before he got Dagenais. To what degree did Dagenais compliment Ribeiro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Crunch Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Ribs was +15, same as Dags, for 2003-2004. Ryder was +10 (in the regular season) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 oops... somehow i was looking at ribs' 2005 stats. Mea Culpa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howie_Morenz Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 And in 2002 - 2003 Ribeiro was -3 in 52 games with 17 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 yeah, but that can be attributed to 'pre-breakout' ribs. Also, his earlier line assignments. This is the standard problem with looking at player statistics in hockey. So much of a player's individual stats are determined by a player's teammates. In baseball a pitcher's wins are screwed up because of his team's offensive output (see Roger Clemens), or because of his team's defensive ineptitude (see Derek Lowe). Classic crap stat is RBI, where a barry bonds who hits tons of solo HRs has less RBI's than Manny Ramirez or A-Rod who have guys on base when they step up to the plate. In hockey, this team dependance is true 100 fold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Crunch Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 But that's the beauty of hockey! Where you actually have to know a team a lot before knowing the true value of the players involved! Where gems can be found and players overrated! Where a combination of different styles can produce an unexpected suprise! Thats one of the aspects I find so interesting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 oh definitely, it is the beauty of hockey. This complexity is part of what makes the game great for stats nuts like me. I really have to work hard to find what im looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howie_Morenz Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I lke the stat that Montreal is winning at a 75% rate at the moment! [Edited on 2005/10/12 by Howie_Morenz] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.