New York Rangers 2011/2012 discussion.

[BenderHockey 127]

Wow, the Weber talk really needs to settle down.

Weber is a fantastic D Man, but his cap hit alone will destroy any future plans. He's not a good fit.

[Chappie 0]

Wow, the Weber talk really needs to settle down.

Weber is a fantastic D Man, but his cap hit alone will destroy any future plans. He's not a good fit.

You'd theoretically rent him for this year, and then trade his RFA rights, but I agree in terms of who we'd have to give up. Don't like the idea of giving up potentially a Chris Kreider unless it's going to net us someone like Bobby Ryan or someone of similar ilk.

[mug25 2]

For one, Sather isn't dumb. He wouldn't trade for Weber only to let him walk. There would be some sort of talk in the mix in regards to a contract.

The cost for Bobby Ryan will be just as much, if not more than Weber. The rumors earlier this season were that Anaheim wanted Stepan+Krieder+Pick.

[Chadd 916]

I really don't see Nashville moving Weber or Suter. They're in the toughest division in the league and losing either one of them could put them out of the playoffs. No team can afford to give up the type of quality Nashville needs to get in return.

[mug25 2]

I really don't see Nashville moving Weber or Suter. They're in the toughest division in the league and losing either one of them could put them out of the playoffs. No team can afford to give up the type of quality Nashville needs to get in return.

I dont think they can afford to keep both. Why wouldn't they try to get something for one while they can?

[Chadd 916]

I dont think they can afford to keep both. Why wouldn't they try to get something for one while they can?

Keeping both and trying to add someone else, shows that they are serious about building a winner. That may help them keep one or both in the long run. Trade one and pack it in and they may push the other one out the door in the off season. Plus, the playoff revenue is badly needed.

[mug25 2]

Keeping both and trying to add someone else, shows that they are serious about building a winner. That may help them keep one or both in the long run. Trade one and pack it in and they may push the other one out the door in the off season. Plus, the playoff revenue is badly needed.

We shall see. Whatever Nashville decides to do, I think the Rangers should go for a D-man with a bomb from the point.

[Chadd 916]

We shall see. Whatever Nashville decides to do, I think the Rangers should go for a D-man with a bomb from the point.

Hence, my suggestion on that one. Plus, he's signed for one more year so they can justify a higher pick or player in exchange.

[str8prostock 1]

I completely disagree with that call tonight. Would love know the the opinions of all hockey fans. Marty should win an academy award for that acting on that play he made it like he was hit by a freight train. Gaborik had snow blowing off his skates 4 ft before the goal plus he was clearly pushed. Regardless we havent scored a PP goal since Jan 21st. ENOUGH SAID. But whatever, that loss of points isn't going to hurt us once the season ends and if it does we can only blame ourselves.

[Chadd 916]

I would have gone with no goal and incidental contact. While he was pushed to some degree, he never changed position at all to avoid running into the goalie in the crease. He allowed the defender to push him into the goalie, so no goal.

[mug25 2]

Ways to fix the powerplay:

1. Sign Brad Richards - DIDN'T WORK

2. Get Del Zotto back in his grove - DIDN'T WORK

3. Get big bodies in front of the net (Boyle, Rupp) - DIDN'T WORK

4. Get a true Shot from the point

5. Stop putting Mike Sullivan in charge of the PP

I dont care if the Bruins had a terrible PP last year and still won the cup. This is just terrible that we havent scored a PPG since January 21st...

[str8prostock 1]

I guess you have a point about that, sort of a grey area. Grey area should go to the home team IMO.

[mug25 2]

If the Rangers would've scored on their numerous powerplay chances tonight, they wouldn't have had to worry about the call on Gaborik.

[Chadd 916]

I guess you have a point about that, sort of a grey area. Grey area should go to the home team IMO.

No, you should protect the goalies at all costs. The game will get completely out of hand it you let guys have free shots at them.

Ways to fix the powerplay:

Stop putting Mike Sullivan in charge of the PP

I dont care if the Bruins had a terrible PP last year and still won the cup. This is just terrible that we havent scored a PPG since January 21st...

If things aren't working there, you have to change the plan or the planner.

If the Rangers would've scored on their numerous powerplay chances tonight, they wouldn't have had to worry about the call on Gaborik.

Ineffective powerplay means teams aren't afraid to take penalties against you. That makes for a harder game, especially when a team has some guys that like to play on the edge.

[mug25 2]

No, you should protect the goalies at all costs. The game will get completely out of hand it you let guys have free shots at them.

If things aren't working there, you have to change the plan or the planner.

Ineffective powerplay means teams aren't afraid to take penalties against you. That makes for a harder game, especially when a team has some guys that like to play on the edge.

Exactly. Something has to be done. I'm not one to call for firing of coaches but Sullivan has had more than a fair chance at getting the system to work. You can only blame the players for so long right?

[Chadd 916]

I'm not suggesting that he be fired, just not in charge of the PP if he can't come up with something that works better.

[coryroth24 15]

I would have gone with no goal and incidental contact. While he was pushed to some degree, he never changed position at all to avoid running into the goalie in the crease. He allowed the defender to push him into the goalie, so no goal.

100% agree with this. Gaborik had enough time to avoid the collision, and he didn't. Thus, the right call was made...

[mug25 2]

Just gotta move on. That's one game. We have bigger fish to fry this week. Lightning, Flyers, Caps, Bruins...

[Chappie 0]

I can't agree chadd. If you watch the replay, Gaborik is digging pretty hard, to the point of snowing, and Volchenkov's momentum is going towards Marty. Gaborik really had no where to go. Volchenkov also admitted after the game that he did push him, so it's hard for me to say that it wasn't a blown call.

While I agree with the notion that goalies have to be protected, you can't over do it. Protect too much and smart players will find a way to take advantage of those rules, which is essentially what Volchenkov did in that situation.

I'm not saying that it was an easy call, nor do I blame the official for not making making it, but there should be replay available on any potential scoring play in the last two minutes of a game, and the coach should have the right to challenge it. There's no doubt in my mind it would've been overturned had such a rule (or one similar) was in place.

[str8prostock 1]

I agree with everything chappie just said most importantly the replay part

[Chadd 916]

I can't agree chadd. If you watch the replay, Gaborik is digging pretty hard, to the point of snowing, and Volchenkov's momentum is going towards Marty. Gaborik really had no where to go. Volchenkov also admitted after the game that he did push him, so it's hard for me to say that it wasn't a blown call.

While I agree with the notion that goalies have to be protected, you can't over do it. Protect too much and smart players will find a way to take advantage of those rules, which is essentially what Volchenkov did in that situation.

I'm not saying that it was an easy call, nor do I blame the official for not making making it, but there should be replay available on any potential scoring play in the last two minutes of a game, and the coach should have the right to challenge it. There's no doubt in my mind it would've been overturned had such a rule (or one similar) was in place.

So you think smart players would abuse rules protecting a goalie but coaches wouldn't abuse a right to challenge?

It was a tight call in a close game that went against your team, accept it for what it was and move on. Making major changes to the fundamentals of the game over something that is, at worst, a tossup call is a severe overreaction.

As for the call itself, Volchenkov is not pushing him into the net. He is to the side and is not doing anything to propel Gaborik forward. Gaborik, on the other hand, leans forward as he gets to the net to make sure he contacts Brodeur. I just don't know how anyone can watch this video and not feel that Gaborik's intentions were obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_kP9X4j8js

[Law Goalie 147]

This is one of the few times I find myself in disagreement with Kerry Fraser's opinion on a call. I think it's evident that Volchenkov physically engages with Gaborik, performs a very slight can-opener or, at the very least, takes away some of his balance and options, and that Gaborik does not deserve a penalty for goalie interference. However, as Chadd rightly observes, Gaborik makes no effort to avoid contact with Brodeur. When Volchenkov engages, Gaborik leans into him and keeps his bearing straight through Brodeur and into the back of the net. Yes, he's putting on the brakes, and there's snow coming up, but that's part of Gaborik's play in driving the net: he's trying to slow down to keep his stick in a prime scoring area as long as possible.

Conceptually, it's simple: goalies cannot defend themselves against contact because 1) they have to maintain a position relative to a fixed position (the goal) and the relative position of scoring threats, and 2) because reading the play around the puck makes it impossible for them to anticipate contact. In short, a goalie facing a scoring play (or even offensive zone possession) is *always* blind-sided. Any chance Brodeur had to make that save was taken away from him.

In fact, speaking from a beer league perspective, I have deliberately allowed goals in order to protect myself from reckless and incompetent players; Brodeur, as a top-flight professional, should not be put in that position. Everyone around him knows the game well enough to know exactly when they're putting him at risk.

IMO, any time a goalie is obstructed - whether it's crashing the net or a shootout spinorama where the shooter runs into him ass-first - the no-goal call should be automatic and reversible only on review; the penalty to the player should be at the referee's discretion.

[burrn 0]

This might be wandering off the topic, but reading the conversation here reminded me of this:

What's your take here?

Personally I feel this is a really bad call (regardless of the fact that I'm a Rangers fan, although that's probably impossible lol),

But if you're supposed to "protect the goalies at all costs," is it a good call then?

[Chadd 916]

bad call

[Law Goalie 147]

Bad call: the goalie chose to compete in a close race for the puck - which was NOT yet a clear-cut scoring play - chose to further endanger himself by sliding into the two oncoming players in an attempt to clear the puck, and Hagelin only jumped in an attempt to avoid him. Had Hagelin simply skated through him, he would have hit him harder, and potentially kneed him in the head. Hagelin also clearly does not see Bachmann coming until the last split-second, when it's too late to do anything other than jump and roll.

I would further point out that at no point have I ever said or 'supposed' that the NHL should "protect goalies at all costs." That's not only not what I said, I don't agree with it. What I said was that a goalie who is attempting to position himself in an attempt to make a save should be protected, by the good sense of opposing players, by his teammates, and failing both, by the rules of the league. Volchenkov (or someone, at least) should have kept Gaborik from getting anywhere near Brodeur on that play.

In the minds of officials, it might begin to look like the Rangers are consistently reckless about opposing goalies' safety in driving the net, and they might begin to see a lot of calls like this go against them. Is it (the one embedded above) the right call in hindsight?-- no. Is it an understandable call?-- sure is.