Mike york

Brign this guy back...i loved him when he was in Blue...i think hes a free agent after this year..im sure he would love to come back to New York...hey what do you Ranger Fans think the next Mike York is in our prospects...im thinking Dom Moore

Ya bring back York. I dont see the next York being Moore though.

I'd love to have Yorkie back. But the sad reality is he'll never be a Ranger ever again. He would have been the perfect captain for the future.

Anyway, I think Dom Moore can be the next York like you said. So, let's hope Moore makes a nice impact on Broadway whenever that is.

Moore, if he worked as hard as York, may, but no knock to Moore's work ethic, it, however, will not approach York's. It's tough to keep that high level of energy up for so long, but that is exactly why York has been successful at the NHL level.

Brign this guy back...i loved him when he was in Blue...i think hes a free agent after this year..im sure he would love to come back to New York...hey what do you Ranger Fans think the next Mike York is in our prospects...im thinking Dom Moore

York is only 26 yrs old.....he won't be a free agent for a few years. Unless they sign a new CBA and lower the age of free agency significantly from the current 31 yrs old.

can't believe he's still so young

Helminen is the next Mike York ...

Love Mike York's energy but i tend to think people are letting that overshadow the fact that he still has yet to be healthy for a seasons second half, is most likely a nonfactor for a playoff team and at 26 already has a lot of wear and tear on a body that has broken down every season since its debut.

Not to knock him, just think he tends to get a bit too much hype around here.

Love Mike York's energy but i tend to think people are letting that overshadow the fact that he still has yet to be healthy for a seasons second half, is most likely a nonfactor for a playoff team and at 26 already has a lot of wear and tear on a body that has broken down every season since its debut.

Not to knock him, just think he tends to get a bit too much hype around here.
i couldn't have put it better myself. we all loved todd harvey too but thats what york has turned into.

the poti trade was worth the risk because at the time potis upside was a lot higher than yorks.

i dont' think york would really make a good captain, but maybe that's just me...he seems too quiet

and for all the upsides, york definatly had his downsides. one of my favorite players but he does get overhyped by ranger fans these days

i couldn't have put it better myself. we all loved todd harvey too but thats what york has turned into.

the poti trade was worth the risk because at the time potis upside was a lot higher than yorks.


Mike York has turned into Todd Harvey?

Not even close to being accurate.Mike York is a guy who will excel in ANY spot amoung your top 9 forwards, is great on the PK, gives 110% game in and game out, can supplement your offense and is just one of the most versatile and hard working guys in the NHL.

Ask Edm fans how they view and value him or better yet ask his teamates.

And on top of all that the guy is ZERO maitnence.

How can you say that Poti had the better upside or that the trade was a good one.Poti is just what everyone knew he'd be, a one-dimensional offensive d-man who needs to have his shortcomings masked by a good team which the NYR's haven't been close to being.

With all the trouble we've had the last few years defensively who brings more value to the NYR's, a versatile and extremely hardworking 2 way forward who can play any forward spot on the team effectively or a soft, zero defense and underperforming supposively offensive d-man who would easily be replaced?

york really isn't a first liner...he can play there for short stints but he honestly is not a 1st line player. more like a good second liner

he'd also wear out and dissapear from time to time...

I think the fact that we're still pining over York and haven't found an adequate replacement says more about our organization than it does about York.

Love Mike York's energy but i tend to think people are letting that overshadow the fact that he still has yet to be healthy for a seasons second half, is most likely a nonfactor for a playoff team and at 26 already has a lot of wear and tear on a body that has broken down every season since its debut.

Not to knock him, just think he tends to get a bit too much hype around here.

But broken hands etc are not something that can be avoided, they are usually just a fluke or bad timing, you can't blame him for that. If some of the player's on the Rangers roster gave 110% every night like York does, instead of skating around like a bunch of figure skaters we would probably see some more broken bone injuries, because that's what happens when you actually block shots, etc.

He was an extremely versatile player and I still think it was the worst move Sather made (out of many bad ones). For a team that has trouble keeping the puck out of their own net, to trade their best penalty killer for a defenseman who has no clue what to do in his own end.

But broken hands etc are not something that can be avoided, they are usually just a fluke or bad timing, you can't blame him for that. If some of the player's on the Rangers roster gave 110% every night like York does, instead of skating around like a bunch of figure skaters we would probably see some more broken bone injuries, because that's what happens when you actually block shots, etc.

He was an extremely versatile player and I still think it was the worst move Sather made (out of many bad ones). For a team that has trouble keeping the puck out of their own net, to trade their best penalty killer for a defenseman who has no clue what to do in his own end.

Having a player who is good for 40 games doesn't make you a better team. The poti-York trade was about too talented players who had very big drawbacks. Period end of sentence.

With Poti you get a defenseman who can help on the powerplay and can play very good for a stretch. The downside is that he plays with no heart.

With York you get 100% heart but a guy who simply cannot stand up to the NHL rigors over an 80 game schedule.

The injuries with York are more than shot blocking, hard hitting injuries. Even when he's played without a serious injury the fact remains he simply breaks down at the midway point of the season.

While one cant help injuries, you also cannot discount them either. Mike York has played in this league for several years now and every year it is the same thing, his body simply cannot handle the wear and tear of the full season.

His effort is wonderful and I miss that, but the fact also remains that in order to win a cup you need guys to play in the spring time. Which is why I agree with Kodiak in that i think Rangers fans miss because he hustled and because this organization hasn't produced much in the past few year rather than what he actually was.

For the record though I personally don't think Poti or York are guys you build a championship team around. The whole debate over which is better is a mute point to me because they both have too serious of flaws {Though different} that prevent them from being guys who i'd include in the core of a group i wanted to take to the next level.

Having a player who is good for 40 games doesn't make you a better team. The poti-York trade was about too talented players who had very big drawbacks. Period end of sentence.

With Poti you get a defenseman who can help on the powerplay and can play very good for a stretch. The downside is that he plays with no heart.

With York you get 100% heart but a guy who simply cannot stand up to the NHL rigors over an 80 game schedule.

The injuries with York are more than shot blocking, hard hitting injuries. Even when he's played without a serious injury the fact remains he simply breaks down at the midway point of the season.

While one cant help injuries, you also cannot discount them either. Mike York has played in this league for several years now and every year it is the same thing, his body simply cannot handle the wear and tear of the full season.

His effort is wonderful and I miss that, but the fact also remains that in order to win a cup you need guys to play in the spring time. Which is why I agree with Kodiak in that i think Rangers fans miss because he hustled and because this organization hasn't produced much in the past few year rather than what he actually was.

For the record though I personally don't think Poti or York are guys you build a championship team around. The whole debate over which is better is a mute point to me because they both have too serious of flaws {Though different} that prevent them from being guys who i'd include in the core of a group i wanted to take to the next level.

I am so tired of hearing the Mike York is only good for the first half the season BS. It seems like one person stated this misconception and now everyone keeps repeating it like it's a fact. He's only had one season where he missed a significant amount of games due to a broken hand. Show me the #'s proving he scores all of his points in the first half of the season. When I check his stats I see for example-
2002-2003
First 3 months of the season 26 Pts
Last 3 months of the season 25 Pts

And if you dig deeper look when he scored the majority of his points, in the third period and when his team is trailing. Yeah I guess a player who knows how to play smart and responsible in his own end who has a decent touch around the net, and ocassionaly scores the highlight goal or makes a nifty pass is a pretty big drawback like you say.

Finally it's not like we needed an offensive defenseman at all with Leetch still here, and the team already not able to keep the puck out of their own net, but I do not see the point of letting Berard go and trading one of our most valuable commodities for Poti. Can you honestly say Poti is an upgrade over Berard? Poti has had one 40+ point season, the rest are 20 and 30 point seasons at best, doesn't sound like much of a offensive defenseman when you read his stats. Berard with one eye is still an upgrade over Poti, he had twice as many points last year and played less games. Neither are what you would call a defensive specialist. But we could have kept Berard for nothing, and not given up our best penalty killer, and the only player on the team that gave 110% everynight. Every 5 on 3 penalty kill situation York was always the one on the ice, didn't matter who the coach was. Poti was booed out of Edmonton and he is already disliked here. York was adored by the NY fans and the Edmonton fans adore him already. Why do you think this is?

I am so tired of hearing the Mike York is only good for the first half the season BS. It seems like one person stated this misconception and now everyone keeps repeating it like it's a fact. He's only had one season where he missed a significant amount of games due to a broken hand. Show me the #'s proving he scores all of his points in the first half of the season. When I check his stats I see for example-
2002-2003
First 3 months of the season 26 Pts
Last 3 months of the season 25 Pts

And if you dig deeper look when he scored the majority of his points, in the third period and when his team is trailing. Yeah I guess a player who knows how to play smart and responsible in his own end who has a decent touch around the net, and ocassionaly scores the highlight goal or makes a nifty pass is a pretty big drawback like you say.

Finally it's not like we needed an offensive defenseman at all with Leetch still here, and the team already not able to keep the puck out of their own net, but I do not see the point of letting Berard go and trading one of our most valuable commodities for Poti. Can you honestly say Poti is an upgrade over Berard? Poti has had one 40+ point season, the rest are 20 and 30 point seasons at best, doesn't sound like much of a offensive defenseman when you read his stats. Berard with one eye is still an upgrade over Poti, he had twice as many points last year and played less games. Neither are what you would call a defensive specialist. But we could have kept Berard for nothing, and not given up our best penalty killer, and the only player on the team that gave 110% everynight. Every 5 on 3 penalty kill situation York was always the one on the ice, didn't matter who the coach was. Poti was booed out of Edmonton and he is already disliked here. York was adored by the NY fans and the Edmonton fans adore him already. Why do you think this is?

Yea at least if ur gonna give up York, at least get value back. I would have loved if the Rangers got hard hitting dman Jason Smith or maybe Mike Comrie when he was holdout, why Poti? Berard did better defensivly with one eye then Poti does with both. And Berard is way better of a leader for the youth and not a soft cream puff like Poti.

He was an extremely versatile player and I still think it was the worst move Sather made (out of many bad ones). For a team that has trouble keeping the puck out of their own net, to trade their best penalty killer for a defenseman who has no clue what to do in his own end.[/QUOTE]

I think the worst Sather defenseman move was his first, choosing not to re-sign Matthew Schneider, who was born in NYC and wanted to stay here, and giving gobs of money to Malakhov instead. If we kept Schneider, who also had a bit of a mean streak, we would not have had to trade York for Potty. Schneider is better offensively than Potty, and plays defense, too.

I think that what else makes the deal bad in Ranger fans' memories was it happened right after Dvorak got hurt and it was rumored that the Oilers wanted Dvorak.

I think that what else makes the deal bad in Ranger fans' memories was it happened right after Dvorak got hurt and it was rumored that the Oilers wanted Dvorak.
Are you kidding me? Thank God that never happened. Otherwise we would have never landed Anson Carter. And look at all he's done for us.

I think that both the praise and criticism directed at York are wildly overstated at times. I'm a big York fan, but the way that some people talk about him you'd think they were talking about Steve Yzerman. That he is not. It's understandable why he gets that treatment, he's everything that all of the various disappointing millionaires that were brought in were not: smart, dedicated and willing to sacrifice his body for the team. He's one of those guys who is not an elite player, but one that any team would love to have.

His injury history is also often exaggerated. He's missed 36 games over his 5-year career, an average of about 7 per season. And his injuries haven't been the type that are the sign of weakness, but the type of injuries that guys who sacrifice their bodies get. I'll take a guy who puts his body on the line for 9 games, even if he's going to be out of the lineup on the tenth over a guy who never misses time due to injury but avoids contact like the plague.

The supposed second-half breakdowns are also overstated. Even to the extent that they are valid, they haven't been as drastic as Poti's stretch-run disappearing acts. Let's not forget that in his first full season as a Ranger, Poti scored half his points over the first 20 games of the season. Plus, York is a guy who helps you win even when he's not producing. A non-producing Poti, on the other hand, is simply a liability.

I think you have to look at the York-for-Poti trade in context to understand what ticked Ranger fans off so much. We loved York because he was one of our own, who played with heart and pride. Sather's decision to trade him for Poti was idiotic on too many levels to count.

-The Rangers biggest problem was their inability to keep the puck out of their own net, so Sather's solution to this was to trade our most marketable asset for a defenseman who can't play defense?
-He was another ex-Oiler, and Ranger fans had taken about all they could of this being the Edmonton Oilers alumni club/retirement home, they wanted to see guys like York who were real Rangers
-Poti was yet another player who was long on talent but short on heart, balls, and guts, we were sick of seeing guys who never lived up to their billing
-It was another move by Sather to fill a hole that he created. Had we kept Jonsson instead of trading him for mushmelon, there would have been no need for Poti, and we could have kept York or at least traded him for a more important need area

Poti was yet another player who was long on talent but short on heart, balls, and guts, we were sick of seeing guys who never lived up to their billing

And ironically, 3 years later, that's the litmus test for future Rangers. Guys like Umberger are sent packing from a tryout while Jed Ortmeyer is showered with all the praise the organization can give him. Think there's been a "philosophical change" among upper management?

The legend of Mike York certainly looms larger than the man himself. It's a factor of the "heartless, balless, gutless" team's Sather has put on the ice and how Mike stuck out like a sore thumb playing amongst them.

Are you kidding me? Thank God that never happened. Otherwise we would have never landed Anson Carter. And look at all he's done for us.

Oh, please. I'm sure that we could have gotten Carter for York.

Oh, please. I'm sure that we could have gotten Carter for York.

Or Dvorak and Nedved for Mike Comrie. Too bad we did not get Comrie. Although he does holdout alot but is a good skilled centre.

Brign this guy back...i loved him when he was in Blue...i think hes a free agent after this year..im sure he would love to come back to New York...hey what do you Ranger Fans think the next Mike York is in our prospects...im thinking Dom Moore
I dont see Moore as the next York, but a player by the name of Helminen would be a good comparison,IMO.

Anyway I would absolutley LOVE YORK BACK IN NYR BLUE,the kid gave his all every night and was a very good 2 way hockey player and I think would have been a great leader with all this tyouth around.

BRING BACK YORKIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And ironically, 3 years later, that's the litmus test for future Rangers. Guys like Umberger are sent packing from a tryout while Jed Ortmeyer is showered with all the praise the organization can give him. Think there's been a "philosophical change" among upper management?

The legend of Mike York certainly looms larger than the man himself. It's a factor of the "heartless, balless, gutless" team's Sather has put on the ice and how Mike stuck out like a sore thumb playing amongst them.


By the way, guys, thanks for taking Sather off our hands. That guy was my hero for years. Now I see what a hypocrite he is. You folks deserve better, hopefully he doesn't last much longer.

By the way, guys, thanks for taking Sather off our hands. That guy was my hero for years. Now I see what a hypocrite he is. You folks deserve better, hopefully he doesn't last much longer.

He'll be here for a while unfortunately. Dolan + Sather = BFF <3

Or Dvorak and Nedved for Mike Comrie. Too bad we did not get Comrie. Although he does holdout alot but is a good skilled centre.

With no heart either. Not a single dig better than Poti IMO.

I'm an Oilers/Rangers fan and I have to say that York is good. However, he's not that good. True, we do love him in Edmonton but that's only in part because we have some pretty crappy forwards.

But seriously, the Rangers are re-building and the only guys we would take for York are your younger players and that would seriously **** up your progress.

Also, we HATE Comrie. I've never seen a player in Edmonton who was more reviled. My friends and I made a point of following him after he left Edmonton in the hopes that he would fall flat on his face. He did and it made us happy.

(okay he didn't do that bad but he didn't do great either)

http://www.forecaster.ca/cbc/hockey/player.cgi?1872

I don't think Dwight has York's nose for the net, nor does he have his tenacity. What made York such a good player was he kept moving and kept attacking the puck. He was a very smart player and never gave up. It's really easy to underestimate how hard he worked to succeed (of course, there are many that can work less hard and be as successful or more successful, but with York's size and skill, he had to work hard). For guys like Dawes or Prucha to make it, they need a York-like work ethic.

As for York's second-half breakdowns...there were a couple seasons in which that was true. You saw him wear, which isn't always going to show up in his scoring stats (although I do remember a 2 goal in 25 game stretch). He wore down because he worked so darn hard. Given 15-16 minutes per night is ideally where he should be, on a second or third line, but can fill in on the top if need be.

I am so tired of hearing the Mike York is only good for the first half the season BS. It seems like one person stated this misconception and now everyone keeps repeating it like it's a fact. He's only had one season where he missed a significant amount of games due to a broken hand. Show me the #'s proving he scores all of his points in the first half of the season. When I check his stats I see for example-
2002-2003
First 3 months of the season 26 Pts
Last 3 months of the season 25 Pts

And if you dig deeper look when he scored the majority of his points, in the third period and when his team is trailing. Yeah I guess a player who knows how to play smart and responsible in his own end who has a decent touch around the net, and ocassionaly scores the highlight goal or makes a nifty pass is a pretty big drawback like you say.

Boy then you're gonna be tired after I finish throwing the following numbers at you:

03-04 season: Played in 10 games after the allstar break and scored 5 points {on four assists}.

He missed just about all of February.
ppg oct- dec: .75
ppg jan-march: .56 {which doesn't include the injury}.

02-03 season: Missed 11 games {i believe all of them after the all-star break in the middle of a playoff drive}

His numbers from oct - December of that year: .70 ppg
January- March - .78 ppg, BUT take away a great start to January and in feb. and march his ppg. were .36

If you wanna take the stats even deeper, we'll go this route:

After the mid point of January, York scored .59 points per game.

But let's disect that even further: from 1/16 till the end of the season York had 6 multiple point games in the oilers final 27 games which comprised 12 of his 16 points. That means in the other 21 games York had all of 4 points.

That also doesn't include his 2 assists in 6 games in the playoffs.

He has an extremely difficult time scoring goals in the latter part of the season. He can still set a few people up, but he's too banged up to do it himself which we'll go into right about....... now:

So now in the 02-03 and 03-04 seasons this are York's numbers pre and post allstar break:

Pre - 102 gp: 34 goals, 44 assists, 78 points or .76 ppg.
Post - 30 gp: 4 goals, 11 assists, 15 points or .50 ppg.

Which in other words means that he scores 4 less points for every 10 games he plays in the second half over just the last two seasons {Which doesn't include the 01-02 season which was magically the fault of the trade or his rookie season which was magically the fault of fatigue.}

To take it even further is how much his ability to actually score goals falls off in the second half of the season.

Pre Allstar he scored .33 gpg or one goal every 3 games. Not bad, not bad at all actually.

Post allstar that number PLUMMETS to .13 gpg or a goal every 7.7 games {more that twice the time which also doesn't fact in time he misses}.

So it's not as much of a myth as you might want to think. His numbers drop off significantly after the allstar break. You can double check the numbers on espn.com if you'd like.

I won't go into the detailed stats on this seasons {unless we'd like to} so I'll just sum up like this for those two seasons:

01-02: He slowed down again in the second half of the season {but it was the trade to Edmonton that did that right?} and finished the season with 4 points in his final 12 games.

00-01: Everyone saw himg get tired in the second half of the season. Simply cannot deny that.


Finally it's not like we needed an offensive defenseman at all with Leetch still here, and the team already not able to keep the puck out of their own net, but I do not see the point of letting Berard go and trading one of our most valuable commodities for Poti. Can you honestly say Poti is an upgrade over Berard? Poti has had one 40+ point season, the rest are 20 and 30 point seasons at best, doesn't sound like much of a offensive defenseman when you read his stats.


Never said it was a good move or that Poti is a great player. But where were you making this point when Berard scored all of 2 goals his first year back and had a nice fat option coming up?

And at the time the hope was they could get a second offensive defenseman behind Leetch which Berard wasn't for them. It's funny how you don't see the point now but I doubt you had a huge problem with letting Berard go then.

Berard with one eye is still an upgrade over Poti, he had twice as many points last year and played less games.

And you think Poti is bad in his own end? You wanna replace him with Berard? A minus 28 the past two seasons?

No Berard wasn't the answer either. In the average season their points will just about be even around the 48 point mark.

The biggest problem with Poti is the lack of passion he plays with out there which makes his average defense look even worse {especially when he poke checks rather than checks}.

Neither are what you would call a defensive specialist. But we could have kept Berard for nothing, and not given up our best penalty killer, and the only player on the team that gave 110% everynight.

So were you one of the millions of people in Ranger land lining message boards with "Keep Berard for 2 million" that we saw? Okay maybe I overexaggerated by saying Millions, what I meant to say was 1 or 2.

York's trade value even now isn't really that high. It might be a little higher than Poti's but it really depends on perception. If the Rangers actually build a defensive core and can hide Poti in it, the average gm will see a 40-50 point defenseman. But it's much harder to hide someone who you could easily look up the numbers i have and see him out of the lineup.

Would I have traded York for Poti? Probably not. But I don't think it's this one sided, collapse of the franchise move that some of our more dramatic board members make it out to be.

I liked York's hustle and heart, but I see him for what he is. An energy guy who gets 20 goals, 40 points and plays 65-70 games a year and most likely is really banged up by the time the playoffs roll around.

Every 5 on 3 penalty kill situation York was always the one on the ice, didn't matter who the coach was. Poti was booed out of Edmonton and he is already disliked here. York was adored by the NY fans and the Edmonton fans adore him already. Why do you think this is?

Because he hustles and gives it his all. But Poti was disliked before he even showed up here because he was traded for York. When I am building a team I could care less whether someone is liked or not, I want to win. To me {As i said} neither guy is a guy i build around. They are both tremendously flawed players. You're fighting me on a point I never made {like if i said poti was so much better than York}.

Yo be honest I really don't think either team won the trade because both players have such a big drawback that it really depends on how you "hide" it. I don't see either player being a core player on a team that wins something and in the regard I'm really not tremendously invested in either.

BOTTOM LINE::

We would all rather have York then Poti and would welcome York on our team any day.

I still don't see the huge drop off you claim going from .76 ppg to a .almost .60 ppg? And you can't use the allstar break as the halfway point, the half way point falls before then. Using the last 2 years your talking about 30 games played after the allstar break because of a broken hand, not much to go by there.

I'm sure if you broke down Gretzky's #'s or Lemiux's #'s you would not see them perfectly balanced. Players and teams get on streaks, that's just the way it is.

I wasnt' saying I wanted to keep Berard, I was making the point that Poti is about as valuable to the Rangers as Berard could have been, and the point was we could have kept him for nothing rather than given up York. Or they could have kept Schneider, or Kim Johnsson. But the last thing this team needed was a defenseman who can't help keep the puck out of their own net.


I liked York's hustle and heart, but I see him for what he is. An energy guy who gets 20 goals, 40 points and plays 65-70 games a year and most likely is really banged up by the time the playoffs roll around.

Besides a slight sophmore slump, and one season with a broken hand he has put up 50-60+ points consistently, not bad for an "energy guy" like you like call to him. Besides the fact he was the team's best penalty killer, and just a smart all around player, and did not look out of place on the power play. I just don't see what his big drawback was, like you do.


Because he hustles and gives it his all. But Poti was disliked before he even showed up here because he was traded for York. When I am building a team I could care less whether someone is liked or not, I want to win. To me {As i said} neither guy is a guy i build around. They are both tremendously flawed players. You're fighting me on a point I never made {like if i said poti was so much better than York}.

Yo be honest I really don't think either team won the trade because both players have such a big drawback that it really depends on how you "hide" it. I don't see either player being a core player on a team that wins something and in the regard I'm really not tremendously invested in either.

That's where I disagree, you show me one championship team, and I bet you it would not have been possible without a role player chipping in at an important time, so to me York is the guy I would want to build my team with. When top teams in the NHL like Detroit win the cup, it's just as much McCarty and Draper chipping in with the big timely goals and important play as Yzerman and Shanahan. Question for you, it's Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals with one minute left in the game who would you rather have on the ice, Poti or York?

I still don't see the huge drop off you claim going from .76 ppg to a .almost .60 ppg? And you can't use the allstar break as the halfway point, the half way point falls before then. Using the last 2 years your talking about 30 games played after the allstar break because of a broken hand, not much to go by there.

I'm sure if you broke down Gretzky's #'s or Lemiux's #'s you would not see them perfectly balanced. Players and teams get on streaks, that's just the way it is.

I wasnt' saying I wanted to keep Berard, I was making the point that Poti is about as valuable to the Rangers as Berard could have been, and the point was we could have kept him for nothing rather than given up York. Or they could have kept Schneider, or Kim Johnsson. But the last thing this team needed was a defenseman who can't help keep the puck out of their own net.

Besides a slight sophmore slump, and one season with a broken hand he has put up 50-60+ points consistently, not bad for an "energy guy" like you like call to him. Besides the fact he was the team's best penalty killer, and just a smart all around player, and did not look out of place on the power play. I just don't see what his big drawback was, like you do.



That's where I disagree, you show me one championship team, and I bet you it would not have been possible without a role player chipping in at an important time, so to me York is the guy I would want to build my team with. When top teams in the NHL like Detroit win the cup, it's just as much McCarty and Draper chipping in with the big timely goals and important play as Yzerman and Shanahan. Question for you, it's Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals with one minute left in the game who would you rather have on the ice, Poti or York?


York for sure. Poti I would never want in the last minute of any game playoffs or regular season. Id want a dman who can play a little defense like Schenider and Berard did both when they were both Rangers and played defense much better than than Poke Check Poti.

Boy then you're gonna be tired after I finish throwing the following numbers at you:

03-04 season: Played in 10 games after the allstar break and scored 5 points {on four assists}.

He missed just about all of February.
ppg oct- dec: .75
ppg jan-march: .56 {which doesn't include the injury}.

02-03 season: Missed 11 games {i believe all of them after the all-star break in the middle of a playoff drive}

His numbers from oct - December of that year: .70 ppg
January- March - .78 ppg, BUT take away a great start to January and in feb. and march his ppg. were .36

If you wanna take the stats even deeper, we'll go this route:

After the mid point of January, York scored .59 points per game.

But let's disect that even further: from 1/16 till the end of the season York had 6 multiple point games in the oilers final 27 games which comprised 12 of his 16 points. That means in the other 21 games York had all of 4 points.

That also doesn't include his 2 assists in 6 games in the playoffs.

He has an extremely difficult time scoring goals in the latter part of the season. He can still set a few people up, but he's too banged up to do it himself which we'll go into right about....... now:

So now in the 02-03 and 03-04 seasons this are York's numbers pre and post allstar break:

Pre - 102 gp: 34 goals, 44 assists, 78 points or .76 ppg.
Post - 30 gp: 4 goals, 11 assists, 15 points or .50 ppg.

Which in other words means that he scores 4 less points for every 10 games he plays in the second half over just the last two seasons {Which doesn't include the 01-02 season which was magically the fault of the trade or his rookie season which was magically the fault of fatigue.}

To take it even further is how much his ability to actually score goals falls off in the second half of the season.

Pre Allstar he scored .33 gpg or one goal every 3 games. Not bad, not bad at all actually.

Post allstar that number PLUMMETS to .13 gpg or a goal every 7.7 games {more that twice the time which also doesn't fact in time he misses}.

So it's not as much of a myth as you might want to think. His numbers drop off significantly after the allstar break. You can double check the numbers on espn.com if you'd like.

I won't go into the detailed stats on this seasons {unless we'd like to} so I'll just sum up like this for those two seasons:

01-02: He slowed down again in the second half of the season {but it was the trade to Edmonton that did that right?} and finished the season with 4 points in his final 12 games.

00-01: Everyone saw himg get tired in the second half of the season. Simply cannot deny that.





Never said it was a good move or that Poti is a great player. But where were you making this point when Berard scored all of 2 goals his first year back and had a nice fat option coming up?

And at the time the hope was they could get a second offensive defenseman behind Leetch which Berard wasn't for them. It's funny how you don't see the point now but I doubt you had a huge problem with letting Berard go then.



And you think Poti is bad in his own end? You wanna replace him with Berard? A minus 28 the past two seasons?

No Berard wasn't the answer either. In the average season their points will just about be even around the 48 point mark.

The biggest problem with Poti is the lack of passion he plays with out there which makes his average defense look even worse {especially when he poke checks rather than checks}.



So were you one of the millions of people in Ranger land lining message boards with "Keep Berard for 2 million" that we saw? Okay maybe I overexaggerated by saying Millions, what I meant to say was 1 or 2.

York's trade value even now isn't really that high. It might be a little higher than Poti's but it really depends on perception. If the Rangers actually build a defensive core and can hide Poti in it, the average gm will see a 40-50 point defenseman. But it's much harder to hide someone who you could easily look up the numbers i have and see him out of the lineup.

Would I have traded York for Poti? Probably not. But I don't think it's this one sided, collapse of the franchise move that some of our more dramatic board members make it out to be.

I liked York's hustle and heart, but I see him for what he is. An energy guy who gets 20 goals, 40 points and plays 65-70 games a year and most likely is really banged up by the time the playoffs roll around.



Because he hustles and gives it his all. But Poti was disliked before he even showed up here because he was traded for York. When I am building a team I could care less whether someone is liked or not, I want to win. To me {As i said} neither guy is a guy i build around. They are both tremendously flawed players. You're fighting me on a point I never made {like if i said poti was so much better than York}.

Yo be honest I really don't think either team won the trade because both players have such a big drawback that it really depends on how you "hide" it. I don't see either player being a core player on a team that wins something and in the regard I'm really not tremendously invested in either.


---You seem to be going to awfully great lengths to highlight York's faults here, Edge. Why? Whatever York's shortcomings in the second-half, he was still a better player than Poti, and that's the issue here. It's not like Poti has a habit of catching fire in the stretch run. Quite the contrary, actually. He suffers more of a letdown than York does. Last year, there was no letdown because he was never up to begin with. If the best argument you can make for Poti is that he was more consistent than York last season because he was equally unproductive in both halves of the season, and that his body is still in good shape in April because he refuses to sacrifice it in October through February, well, that about says it all.

I think you're "tremendously flawed" label attaches accurately to only one player in this discussion.

that it was a good trade, rather he feels there's way too much praise for York. Some get too excited over a guy that gave 110%, forgetting that if he gave any less he would not be an NHLer, whereas some other guys can play at 75% and still be better. I think we all liked York, but he wasn't some first line perennial All Star and a team of 18 Yorks wouldn't go very far. A team with players like Poti, Kovalev and others that gave York's efforts, yes, that's a different story.

that it was a good trade, rather he feels there's way too much praise for York. Some get too excited over a guy that gave 110%, forgetting that if he gave any less he would not be an NHLer, whereas some other guys can play at 75% and still be better. I think we all liked York, but he wasn't some first line perennial All Star and a team of 18 Yorks wouldn't go very far. A team with players like Poti, Kovalev and others that gave York's efforts, yes, that's a different story.

If we had a team full of York's who gave the full effort that York did, then we would be one of the hardest working teams in the leagues, and maybe alot of that hard work would turn into wins.

in addition to that hard work. I like hard work. It's fun to watch fourth line energy lines go out there and do their best in the 5-7 minutes they're out there during a game. Maybe they win a lot, maybe not, the point is we're talking about a nice player to have around, but a guy you would not want on a top line for 82 games.

Agree with edge, for the most part and with the rest of the board when they say York is better then Poti. As a player, York can't turn a game (or season) around by himself. He's a good forward with skill but not size unfortunately.

I still don't see the huge drop off you claim going from .76 ppg to a .almost .60 ppg? And you can't use the allstar break as the halfway point, the half way point falls before then. Using the last 2 years your talking about 30 games played after the allstar break because of a broken hand, not much to go by there.

You dont see the huge drop off in .25 points per game on top of missing games with injuries and looking dead tired heading into the final stretch?

I'm sure if you broke down Gretzky's #'s or Lemiux's #'s you would not see them perfectly balanced. Players and teams get on streaks, that's just the way it is.

They are, but you are talking about significant drop offs in the second half which is exactly my point. We're talking about a player who is VERY tired by the time a successful team would be making the playoffs.

I wasnt' saying I wanted to keep Berard, I was making the point that Poti is about as valuable to the Rangers as Berard could have been, and the point was we could have kept him for nothing rather than given up York. Or they could have kept Schneider, or Kim Johnsson. But the last thing this team needed was a defenseman who can't help keep the puck out of their own net.

The Rangers took a chance on a then 25 year old defenseman who they thought might develop into something. Bottom line is that at the time, no one wanted to keep Berard and Berard didn't look he was going to recover to the level even that poti was at.



Besides a slight sophmore slump, and one season with a broken hand he has put up 50-60+ points consistently, not bad for an "energy guy" like you like call to him. Besides the fact he was the team's best penalty killer, and just a smart all around player, and did not look out of place on the power play. I just don't see what his big drawback was, like you do.

If you want to build a playoff team you need guys to help you in the playoffs. The Rangers haven't made the playoffs anyway but i don't see how a player who despite his good qualities doesn't have energy at the end of the season addresses that or warrants the pissing and moaning that has been going on here like we just traded a franchise player.



That's where I disagree, you show me one championship team, and I bet you it would not have been possible without a role player chipping in at an important time, so to me York is the guy I would want to build my team with.

But if the guy is running on empty by the the time the playoffs start how exactly are you gonna build around him? That doesn't even make sense. I'm not disputing the fact that playoff teams need energy guys, but the key point is that chipping in means having the energy too. if they are tired banging up and their production is falling through the basement that doesn't really help a great deal.

When top teams in the NHL like Detroit win the cup, it's just as much McCarty and Draper chipping in with the big timely goals and important play as Yzerman and Shanahan. Question for you, it's Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals with one minute left in the game who would you rather have on the ice, Poti or York?

But again you're completely ignoring what i am saying. I wouldn't want EITHER because i dont think EITHER is that type of player. THAT's exactly the point i am making. I don't dislike York but all this talk over a "nice" second line player is a bit much. I like guys who chip in with big time goals but 2 goals in 21 games wasn't exactly chipping in and 2 assists in 6 playoff games isn't either. Which again is exactly my point, if i saw energy levels from him than i could warrant the opposing arguments but by the time the playoffs roll around he doesn't have enough left to "Chip in" a whole lot.

[You seem to be going to awfully great lengths to highlight York's faults here, Edge. Why?

Because never in my life has seen such a love affair and crying and moaning about a guy who is a "nice" but not earth shattering second line player and one who as numbers and watching shows cannot play down the stretch.

Whatever York's shortcomings in the second-half, he was still a better player than Poti, and that's the issue here. It's not like Poti has a habit of catching fire in the stretch run. Quite the contrary, actually. He suffers more of a letdown than York does.


But again who is arguing that point? How many times have i said that i don't think either player is a guy who does that? How many times have i said i wouldn't build around either? You're arguing with me a point i am not making here.

Last year, there was no letdown because he was never up to begin with. If the best argument you can make for Poti is that he was more consistent than York last season because he was equally unproductive in both halves of the season, and that his body is still in good shape in April because he refuses to sacrifice it in October through February, well, that about says it all.

Who is defending poti? I've never once favored or defended poti. the thread was about york and quickly it turned into a lamenting about york thread. I've even said i wouldn't trade york for poti. What I HAVE said is that York is overrated. But no one seems to be replying to that, instead i'm talking about a point i never even made.

I think you're "tremendously flawed" label attaches accurately to only one player in this discussion.

And that's a difference in opinion there. I think a player who drops off that dramatically, especially in terms of goals has a big flaw attatched to him. i never said i'd take it over poti's or that poti is better, but i am not going to get wishy washy over a player with that big of a flaw. it's like fletch said, effort is great but if he wears down than he wears down. He is a nice/good second or third line player but the amount of coversation he gets is a bit much. That was my original point, nothing more. if someone disagrees with me on that, that is okay by me. But i can't argue a point i never made which is what i've been doing for two pages now.

that it was a good trade, rather he feels there's way too much praise for York. Some get too excited over a guy that gave 110%, forgetting that if he gave any less he would not be an NHLer, whereas some other guys can play at 75% and still be better. I think we all liked York, but he wasn't some first line perennial All Star and a team of 18 Yorks wouldn't go very far. A team with players like Poti, Kovalev and others that gave York's efforts, yes, that's a different story.

Thank you Fletch, that is EXACTLY what I am trying to say. Bless you.....

If we had a team full of York's who gave the full effort that York did, then we would be one of the hardest working teams in the leagues, and maybe alot of that hard work would turn into wins.

But as Fletch said, that effort is wonderful but if the energy is all spent by playoff time it becomes a mute point.

to Gretzky and Lemiuex? Now that's just wrong, no matter what point is trying to be made.

That's what i am arguing a bit against here.

I liked York but i think he's getting blown way out of proportion here.

And for the 100th {so i dont have to discuss it again} that DOES NOT mean i'd take Poti over him.

in addition to that hard work. I like hard work. It's fun to watch fourth line energy lines go out there and do their best in the 5-7 minutes they're out there during a game. Maybe they win a lot, maybe not, the point is we're talking about a nice player to have around, but a guy you would not want on a top line for 82 games.

Calling a guy who scores approx 60pts a year consistently and has played in an all-star game and for Team USA in the olympics a 4th line energy player is a little bit of a stretch.

to Gretzky and Lemiuex? Now that's just wrong, no matter what point is trying to be made.

Read the post again, I was talking about players point per game averages and the fact that even the best player's in the league will have varying #'s because some start off fast out of the gate and some build momentum as the season goes on.


But again you're completely ignoring what i am saying. I wouldn't want EITHER because i dont think EITHER is that type of player. THAT's exactly the point i am making. I don't dislike York but all this talk over a "nice" second line player is a bit much. I like guys who chip in with big time goals but 2 goals in 21 games wasn't exactly chipping in and 2 assists in 6 playoff games isn't either. Which again is exactly my point, if i saw energy levels from him than i could warrant the opposing arguments but by the time the playoffs roll around he doesn't have enough left to "Chip in" a whole lot.

He had just come back from a broken hand and was probably still wearing a cast during the playoffs so it's hard to evaluate his playoff performance. Finally using #'s from the last two seasons and comparing 102 games to 30 games after the all star break so your ppg average drop off of approx. 15 is not even a relevant comparision. The guy I saw playing did not slow down at the end of every season, so it's just your opinion. He gave 110% every night from the first game of the season till the last game, and even if he didn't contribute on the scoresheet he was helping the team with excellent penalty killing, etc.

I don't even know why we're having this discussion because you agree you wouldn't have traded York for Poti.

York's never hit 60 points, I believe, much less has been a consistent 60-point point getter.

Never said that York was a fourth line energy line, but I made an analogy akin to your analogy. You say Lemieux, et al, have scoring slumps and compare York to that. So, in a little bit of tongue-in-cheek, I compared the energy that York brings and everybody gets excited about to that of the fourth line guys that go out and play hard and everybody loves.

Perhaps not a fair analogy, but York should not be talked about in the same breath as Gretzky and Lemieux. You're talking about slow starters in guys who consistently scored more than 100 points...and one scored over 200 points a couple times...comparing their occasional slow starts, or anything related to scoring, to York, who's never broken 60?

I read your post...I understood your post...but I really cannot fathom talking about York's scoring inconsintency (which I believe was the topic) with the scoring inconsistency of two of the most prolific scorers in NHL history. It just doesn't make any sense.

Calling a guy who scores approx 60pts a year consistently and has played in an all-star game and for Team USA in the olympics a 4th line energy player is a little bit of a stretch.

First off I dont remember anyone saying he was a 4th line player. It's been said he's an energy guy and a solid second/third line player but not a fourth liner.

Secondly he's hit 60 once {when he had 61 points}. His other toals have been 50, 31, 51 and 42. That is a weeeee bit off from averaging 60 points a year. In fact it's more 47 points per game.

Again that isn't to knock him but ideally York is a 20 goal, 45-50 point player. A nice second liner.


Read the post again, I was talking about players point per game averages and the fact that even the best player's in the league will have varying #'s because some start off fast out of the gate and some build momentum as the season goes on.

That is also understood but his scoring declines arent because he loses sight. It is because he's tiring at that point, that's just the long and short of it. You can see it when you watch him, you can see it in his stats, heck you can see it in his medical files. It's simply the way it is, we need to stop treating the situation like it's a four letter word. It's not an insult to him, it's simply the way it is.


He had just come back from a broken hand and was probably still wearing a cast during the playoffs so it's hard to evaluate his playoff performance. Finally using #'s from the last two seasons and comparing 102 games to 30 games after the all star break so your ppg average drop off of approx. 15 is not even a relevant comparision.

Then what is a good comparison? I mean if you don't wanna go by watching him and you don't wanna go by numbers than what do you wanna go by? His facial features? I mean seriously, i dont know what you wanna go by....

Even if you want to completely ignore an "irrelevant" point per game number, than look at an even more dramatic goal differential. I mean it's almost sounding like i am trying to rag on York at this point when I'm really not. I just think if we're gonna look at him, we gotta be fair and realistic about what we're talking about. I love Adam Graves to the ends of the earth as a player but I also gotta accept that after his back injyry he was a 20-30 goal, 50 point player. He wasn't a 50 goal, 85 point player.


The guy I saw playing did not slow down at the end of every season, so it's just your opinion. He gave 110% every night from the first game of the season till the last game, and even if he didn't contribute on the scoresheet he was helping the team with excellent penalty killing, etc.

And he also missed time all of those games and his body was too banged up to contribute much offensivly which effort or no effort a top 6 forward HAS to do for his team to be successful in the post season or a stretch run. Effort is a wonderful, beautiful thing but it doesn't always lift a team in those crucial times.

I don't even know why we're having this discussion because you agree you wouldn't have traded York for Poti.

The issue isn't whether who anyone would trade him for that i am discussing. It's that York's abilities and results are getting blown out of proportion here. Let's acknowledge him as a solid second/third liner player who brings heart and energy to the team. But let's not turn him into a guy who will lead a team to the promised land and doesn't have a history of tiredness down the stretch. If we accept York for his good attributes we almost must accept him for the things he doesn't bring to the table as well. One of those being durability and the frame of a guy who can score once the wear and tear catches up to him. If he had that you'd be looking at Martin St. Louis type numbers, but you aren't. There is a reason why he averages his "nice" but not "spectacular" 20 goals and 40 points and has missed 30 games in the last two seasons.

He's a nice player, but how many "nice players" tend to warrant the attention York has gotten? It's just not proportional. Personally i think it says more about deprived the fans are around here of guys showing an effort than it does of what mike york actually was/is.

Because never in my life has seen such a love affair and crying and moaning about a guy who is a "nice" but not earth shattering second line player and one who as numbers and watching shows cannot play down the stretch.



But again who is arguing that point? How many times have i said that i don't think either player is a guy who does that? How many times have i said i wouldn't build around either? You're arguing with me a point i am not making here.



Who is defending poti? I've never once favored or defended poti. the thread was about york and quickly it turned into a lamenting about york thread. I've even said i wouldn't trade york for poti. What I HAVE said is that York is overrated. But no one seems to be replying to that, instead i'm talking about a point i never even made.



And that's a difference in opinion there. I think a player who drops off that dramatically, especially in terms of goals has a big flaw attatched to him. i never said i'd take it over poti's or that poti is better, but i am not going to get wishy washy over a player with that big of a flaw. it's like fletch said, effort is great but if he wears down than he wears down. He is a nice/good second or third line player but the amount of coversation he gets is a bit much. That was my original point, nothing more. if someone disagrees with me on that, that is okay by me. But i can't argue a point i never made which is what i've been doing for two pages now.


---And I acknowledged earlier that York is overrated by some. I guess you're just trying to provide balance to the overhyping by being overly critical and making hyperbolic statements about how he "simply cannot play down the stretch".

I said approx 60 pts. He's had every 50+ points every season except for a slight sophmore slump, and a broken hand where he only played 60 games, and he still had over 40 points that season. Every other year he's had 50-60+ points. That's pretty consistent to me, calling him only a 40 point a year player is the exactly one of the points i'm making for some reason you have to put him down while you say he is overhyped. I never said he was a first line player, I am saying he was extremely valuable to the Rangers because of his versatility. He could play on the powerplay, or kill off a 5 on 3 penalty kill, the kind of player this team or any other team in this league needs to be successful, not a one dimensional 20-30 point a year defenseman.

And for the last time I was not comparing York to Gretzky or Lemieux, I was talking about ppg averages and the fact that everyone in the league will have a slightly higher average at one point in the year. Let me give you an example, if Gretzky scored 60% of his total points in one season before the all star break and 40% after was he dead tired down the stretch? The fact that it is not always a player tiring down the stretch necessarily. Also the fact the Rangers as a team usually got worse and worse towards the end of every season for the last 7 years did not help York's or anybody's #s on the team.

I said approx 60 pts. He's had every 50+ points every season except for a slight sophmore slump, and a broken hand where he only played 60 games, and he still had over 40 points that season. Every other year he's had 50-60+ points. That's pretty consistent to me, calling him only a 40 point a year player is the exactly one of the points i'm making for some reason you have to put him down while you say he is overhyped. I never said he was a first line player, I am saying he was extremely valuable to the Rangers because of his versatility. He could play on the powerplay, or kill off a 5 on 3 penalty kill, the kind of player this team or any other team in this league needs to be successful, not a one dimensional 20-30 point a year defenseman.

And for the last time I was not comparing York to Gretzky or Lemieux, I was talking about ppg averages and the fact that everyone in the league will have a slightly higher average at one point in the year. Let me give you an example, if Gretzky scored 60% of his total points in one season before the all star break and 40% after was he dead tired down the stretch? The fact that it is not always a player tiring down the stretch necessarily. Also the fact the Rangers as a team usually got worse and worse towards the end of every season for the last 7 years did not help York's or anybody's #s on the team.I agree with you 100%

The year i can remember where York noticeble slowed down in the 2nd half was his 2nd season, the majority of which was spent on a line with Lindros and Fleury.... anyone who remembers those games would tell you that York was the guy grinding it out in the corners against opposing teams best defenders... naturally the guy was going to get tired and have his production suffer, as he is not suited for top line duty for more then a short period of time...

That was the year most folks started to label York as someone who wasn't durable...which i've always thought was nonsense...

His rookie year was a tad up and down, but he did lead the team with 26 goals in 82 games... the following year, the one i describe he played in 79 games... the year after when he was dealt, he played 81 games, the year after was 71 and only last season did he miss a significant amount of time playing only 61 games, and a broken hand is hardly something a player can control

He is definitely a little streaky, but his game totals offer no evidence to the theory that his isn't a durable player... those who say he is a solid 3rd/2nd line player are correct, but those who also say looking at his "medical records" suggest he is not durable, well that just doesn't make much sense... before missing 21 games due to what most would term a freak injury, York missed a grand total of 15 games in 4 years prior to last season... and for a guy who is one of the more versatile players in the league, using a slight dip in numbers during certain parts of the season are no evidence that his play drops off... York is more then willing to sacrifice a few points for the better of the team...Would be nice to have his youthful leadership set by example right about now

47 points does not approximate 60. And I know you're not comparing York to Gretzky and Lemiuex...I was just stating that I thought it was silly to compare a person's (streakiness?) to that of two of the most prolific point-getters of all time in the NHL. Granted you're trying to make a point, but considering you're basically saying that York went through ruts (which is understandable), you're supporting Edge's statements because he's saying when many of those ruts came.

---And I acknowledged earlier that York is overrated by some. I guess you're just trying to provide balance to the overhyping by being overly critical and making hyperbolic statements about how he "simply cannot play down the stretch".

If calling a spade a spade is overly critical than sure I am.

But the fact that a thread about a second line player who played 3 seasons with has gone to four players just proves the point further.

I said approx 60 pts.

And to echo Fletch, averaging 47 points is not averaging 60 points it's not even in the approx. range.


He's had every 50+ points every season except for a slight sophmore slump, and a broken hand where he only played 60 games, and he still had over 40 points that season. Every other year he's had 50-60+ points.

Actually he's played 5 years and had two seasons where he barely passed 30 and scored 41. That's not 50+ every season.

That's pretty consistent to me, calling him only a 40 point a year player is the exactly one of the points i'm making for some reason you have to put him down while you say he is overhyped.

Actually i said 45-50 point which is EXACTLY his average.In fact the only season he went out of that range was when he scored 60 once {Which was balanced by his 30 point season to average out to....you guessed it ......45 points!}

I never said he was a first line player, I am saying he was extremely valuable to the Rangers because of his versatility. He could play on the powerplay, or kill off a 5 on 3 penalty kill, the kind of player this team or any other team in this league needs to be successful, not a one dimensional 20-30 point a year defenseman.

And in response i said those players are valuable and needed by every team in the league if they can do that in march and april not in october and november. And likewise i've provided stats to show that at the most crucial time of the years he's gotten hurt and his production has declined.

And for the last time I was not comparing York to Gretzky or Lemieux, I was talking about ppg averages and the fact that everyone in the league will have a slightly higher average at one point in the year. Let me give you an example, if Gretzky scored 60% of his total points in one season before the all star break and 40% after was he dead tired down the stretch? The fact that it is not always a player tiring down the stretch necessarily. Also the fact the Rangers as a team usually got worse and worse towards the end of every season for the last 7 years did not help York's or anybody's #s on the team.

But the main problem with that is that his point production is cute in half and his goal production even more. We're not talking about a drop off of 3 or 4 goals here, we're talking about 3 in 21 games. BIG difference.

The year i can remember where York noticeble slowed down in the 2nd half was his 2nd season, the majority of which was spent on a line with Lindros and Fleury.... anyone who remembers those games would tell you that York was the guy grinding it out in the corners against opposing teams best defenders... naturally the guy was going to get tired and have his production suffer, as he is not suited for top line duty for more then a short period of time...

That was the year most folks started to label York as someone who wasn't durable...which i've always thought was nonsense...

His rookie year was a tad up and down, but he did lead the team with 26 goals in 82 games... the following year, the one i describe he played in 79 games... the year after when he was dealt, he played 81 games, the year after was 71 and only last season did he miss a significant amount of time playing only 61 games, and a broken hand is hardly something a player can control

He is definitely a little streaky, but his game totals offer no evidence to the theory that his isn't a durable player... those who say he is a solid 3rd/2nd line player are correct, but those who also say looking at his "medical records" suggest he is not durable, well that just doesn't make much sense... before missing 21 games due to what most would term a freak injury, York missed a grand total of 15 games in 4 years prior to last season... and for a guy who is one of the more versatile players in the league, using a slight dip in numbers during certain parts of the season are no evidence that his play drops off... York is more then willing to sacrifice a few points for the better of the team...Would be nice to have his youthful leadership set by example right about now

Just because someone doesn't miss a game doesn't mean they aren't hurt....Adam Graves proved that. But 30 games in two years is a lot and when you add his rookie season where he slowed down and his sophmore "slump" as you wanna call it, you're talking about 4 out of 5 years now.

So when it happens next season, what "reason" will it be then. Because it is going to happen, those no if about it.

47 points does not approximate 60. And I know you're not comparing York to Gretzky and Lemiuex...I was just stating that I thought it was silly to compare a person's (streakiness?) to that of two of the most prolific point-getters of all time in the NHL. Granted you're trying to make a point, but considering you're basically saying that York went through ruts (which is understandable), you're supporting Edge's statements because he's saying when many of those ruts came.


Again, pretty much.

Actually he's played 5 years and had two seasons where he barely passed 30 and scored 41. That's not 50+ every season.

It's like your not even reading what I wrote and just turning everything around.
Take a breath, relax, and read it again-

He's had 50-60+ points every season except for a slight sophmore slump and a broken hand where he only played 60 games, and he still had over 40 points that season.


47 points does not approximate 60.

Your using a season in which he missed 25% of the year because of the broken hand. Obviously that would bring down his full season average, because he did not play the full season.



Again this converstion is pointless, you agree you wouldn't trade York for Poti, but your just arguing that he is overrated? I don't know if he slept with your sister or something, but if you want to put him down because it helps you sleep at night then knock yourself out.

I don't say, Jagr scored 85 points in 68 games, but that extrapolates to a higher number and thus would win the scoring title. We're talking about absolute points, not points per game. If he misses a game, well, that does no good for his team now does it? His point totals would normally be compared agains other players on an absolute basis, not just in games he played.

I don't say, Jagr scored 85 points in 68 games, but that extrapolates to a higher number and thus would win the scoring title. We're talking about absolute points, not points per game. If he misses a game, well, that does no good for his team now does it? His point totals would normally be compared agains other players on an absolute basis, not just in games he played.

When Mario Lemieux missed a few seasons with cancer and did not play a single game do you average those into his career as 4+ yrs with 0 points??

Well if you want to be technical York has averaged .628 points per game over his career. When using using the 82 game season as a reference that is equivalent to a 51.5 points per season average (over the course of a full season) or when you round up (because of the .5) 52 points per season.

Put him down all you want but to me he was one of the lone bright spots over the pathetic 7yr run this team has had. I think it was a brutal trade giving up probably the most valuable commodity this team had at the time for an "offensive" defenseman who averages 20-30 points a year and can't play defense if his life depended on it.

But according you you since he always tired down at the end of the season and would have been a liablitly in the playoffs and averaged only 40 points a year, I guess acquiring Poti was a steal?? That is basically what you are saying.

When Mario Lemieux missed a few seasons with cancer and did not play a single game do you average those into his career as 4+ yrs with 0 points??

No, because he was retired then.

I agree with Edge that some Rangers fans tend to overrate York. I loved this guy when he was here (and I still do :rolly: ) but he was not and won't ever be the savior of this franchise.

Just because someone doesn't miss a game doesn't mean they aren't hurt....Adam Graves proved that. But 30 games in two years is a lot and when you add his rookie season where he slowed down and his sophmore "slump" as you wanna call it, you're talking about 4 out of 5 years now.

So when it happens next season, what "reason" will it be then. Because it is going to happen, those no if about it.


Graves used to skate around like he had cement blocks attached to his skates after the surgery, and it affected everything he did....numbers, hitting, endurance, ect...How that compares to York, i don't know

As for the 4 out of 5 seasons as you wanna call it, well i guess that's just your opinion.... for some reason with York you are only using his pure numbers, completely disregarding what else he does on the ice.... As i said, the only noticeable season to me in which his all around play dropped drastically was season no.2, which he was the 1st line C/W for about 2/3 season.... more a case of over/misuse then anything else

Graves used to skate around like he had cement blocks attached to his skates after the surgery, and it affected everything he did....numbers, hitting, endurance, ect...How that compares to York, i don't know

As for the 4 out of 5 seasons as you wanna call it, well i guess that's just your opinion.... for some reason with York you are only using his pure numbers, completely disregarding what else he does on the ice.... As i said, the only noticeable season to me in which his all around play dropped drastically was season no.2, which he was the 1st line C/W for about 2/3 season.... more a case of over/misuse then anything else


I understand what he does outside of numbers, but a nice player who scores 20 goals and 45-50 points simply does not fathom the attention that this guy has gotten from some members of this board. Heck the oilers fans like him but even they don't go as bonkers as some around here go over him.

He was young and he had heart and that made him a nice, good player. But his hype has turned to almost mythological proportions. We're now on a fifth page about this guy, that's just unreal.

I understand what he does outside of numbers, but a nice player who scores 20 goals and 45-50 points simply does not fathom the attention that this guy has gotten from some members of this board. Heck the oilers fans like him but even they don't go as bonkers as some around here go over him.

He was young and he had heart and that made him a nice, good player. But his hype has turned to almost mythological proportions. We're now on a fifth page about this guy, that's just unreal.

My dislike for Poti doesn't even merit 5 pages ;) . I loved Yorks work ethic, and I would still love to have him on our team. I wouldn't have made that trade, but still... He's a solid 2nd line player. As much as we liked him, it's not like we traded away Rick Nash or J-BO for Poti. York is worth a bit more, but its not like it was a terribly unbalanced trade. He would have been a great example to our young guys, but he's gone so some people just have to deal with it. It's not the end of the world or hockey in NY.

My dislike for Poti doesn't even merit 5 pages ;) . I loved Yorks work ethic, and I would still love to have him on our team. I wouldn't have made that trade, but still... He's a solid 2nd line player. As much as we liked him, it's not like we traded away Rick Nash or J-BO for Poti. York is worth a bit more, but its not like it was a terribly unbalanced trade. He would have been a great example to our young guys, but he's gone so some people just have to deal with it. It's not the end of the world or hockey in NY.

Ya know there's only been one trade that really urked me through the years, the Tony Amonte one. Other than that....well, I'm Apathy Man.

but, I was being short-sighted back then. The Norstrom trade really irked me because I thought it did nothing for the Rangers' playoff push at the time and would not help them in the playoffs (thinking that Ferraro would fare better than Kurri), and further, I thought it did little for the future. At the time and looking back, I really disliked that trade (I was a big Norstrom fan and thought he had started to turn things up a notch; further, I really like Laperriere too).

I understand what he does outside of numbers, but a nice player who scores 20 goals and 45-50 points simply does not fathom the attention that this guy has gotten from some members of this board. Heck the oilers fans like him but even they don't go as bonkers as some around here go over him.

He was young and he had heart and that made him a nice, good player. But his hype has turned to almost mythological proportions. We're now on a fifth page about this guy, that's just unreal.


Maybe hype, maybe simple respect... he seemed to be the only guy giving an honest, 100% effort shift after shift... i don't see the hype though... i think most folks contributing to this thread are very realistic in regard to what York brings to the ice

Also think he gets the attention because of the player, or lack of one, that came back in return when he was dealt.... He was for the most part the teams most well rounded forward, and hardest worker... Shipped away for a guy who was/is no better then Berard IMO who we had the option to keep at the time....

Is it a bad thing that we have 5 pages on this topic? York obviously had many fans, the discussion has been a good one... are we taking up too much space?

but, I was being short-sighted back then. The Norstrom trade really irked me because I thought it did nothing for the Rangers' playoff push at the time and would not help them in the playoffs (thinking that Ferraro would fare better than Kurri), and further, I thought it did little for the future. At the time and looking back, I really disliked that trade (I was a big Norstrom fan and thought he had started to turn things up a notch; further, I really like Laperriere too).

Absolutely right. We gave up on Nordstrom before he ever really had a chance. And Laperriere is and was a useful player who was already becoming a fan favorite.

Graveytrain? We have all winter, spring, summer and fall (sounds like a song).

what else would you like to talk about...

Graveytrain? We have all winter, spring, summer and fall (sounds like a song).

:dunno:

I didn't start the thread, just contributed to it... didn't know that was a crime, or that there was a page limit on certain topics... seems to me if you are not interested in the thread then don't read it??

you asked if we were taking up space (and I guess I assumed that you thought we were spending too much time on the topic). My response is basically ssaying no, we haven't spent too much time on it. I've contributed a fair amount to the thread too, so I can't understand why you would ask if it was a crime to contribute.

you asked if we were taking up space (and I guess I assumed that you thought we were spending too much time on the topic). My response is basically ssaying no, we haven't spent too much time on it. I've contributed a fair amount to the thread too, so I can't understand why you would ask if it was a crime to contribute.


Sorry for the confusion... Edge had mentioned that the thread had become too long....that's what i mean by taking up too much space, which i don't think we have either...

York is a fave of mine, others too i assume... so the lengthy discussion is not surprising to me... but others disagree i guess

I don't think there's a Rangers fan that didn't like having York, nor would they rather have Poti than York. It's really a matter of defining what York was, as in some opinions, too often York's been played-up a bit too much, whicle others thought he was a nice, complenetary player who gave his all (and nobody would deny he gave his all, I believe, it was refreshing to see, but it doesn't make his results any better).

Lapperierre was one of my fav players at the time of the trade, and I liked Norstron so I was really pissed. I was devastated when they dealt Amonte. I remember being 10, and my Dad told me Amonte was traded when I got picked up from soccer practice. I wouldnt believe him til I heard it on TV. That sucked. He was my fav Ranger at the time.

I don't think there's a Rangers fan that didn't like having York, nor would they rather have Poti than York. It's really a matter of defining what York was, as in some opinions, too often York's been played-up a bit too much, whicle others thought he was a nice, complenetary player who gave his all (and nobody would deny he gave his all, I believe, it was refreshing to see, but it doesn't make his results any better).

York was/is my favorite modern Ranger, my favorite ranger during this 7 year debacle. He gave it his all every single night, and thats what set him apart. He had a very impressive rookie campaign in which he showed some scoring touch. He is a nice complimentary player, and he proved that playing on the FLY Line.

But with all that said, he is no more than a 2nd/3rd line energy guy. Even though he doesnt have crazy talent, he's a fan favorite, and isn't that all that really matters?

but often that doesn't matter to me as much as what the end result was. Results are, in the end, what counts.

but often that doesn't matter to me as much as what the end result was. Results are, in the end, what counts.


Heres how i look at it. I'll take Mike York over Pavel Bure any day of the week. Pavel Bure may put up 50-60 Goals a season (Lets just figure he's always healthy), but i enjoy watching Mike York work his butt off everynight. And i feel, if we, as fans, like a guy for working hard, than thats what matters.

Sure, I always wanna win. And im not saying we cant win with Mike York...but i rather lose with a bunch of guys i really like, than win with a bunch of guys i dont like at all.

take a healthy Bure over York. I'd take 60 goals over 20 goals, anyday. The little things York does and his hard work get him the numbers you see. He's not a focus opening up the ice and he doesn't make his linemates any better. The hard work only gets you so far. Talent takes you further. And while Bure's forte isn't defense, when he was healthy he was an effective penalty killer because the guys on the blueline worried everytime he was on the ice that they'd get behind. I want to win, personally. Hard work's nice, but if it gets you nowhere, well, then I think you'd get bored pretty quickly.

Hard work is fun to watch, but I'd rather see the 50-60 goal scorer as the team wins. Taking York over a healthy Bure is unrealistic. There is not a team in NHL history who would contemplate that trade. 2nd/3rd line players can be drafted or signed, but elite level talents like Bure are few and far between. He led a relatively weak team to the 7th game of a cup final, what has York done other then block shots, and score the odd goal?

When it comes to a couple of recent trades between Edmonton and NYR, the student has really taken the teacher to school.

Somehow Lowe was able to take two of the softest players ever to don Oilers colours and turn them into York and Dvorak, a couple of players that have become the two most valuable 2-way forwards on the team.

If I were Lowe I'd be sending Glen a huge gift every Christmas, and I'd have him on my speed dial every trade deadline.

take a healthy Bure over York. I'd take 60 goals over 20 goals, anyday. The little things York does and his hard work get him the numbers you see. He's not a focus opening up the ice and he doesn't make his linemates any better. The hard work only gets you so far. Talent takes you further. And while Bure's forte isn't defense, when he was healthy he was an effective penalty killer because the guys on the blueline worried everytime he was on the ice that they'd get behind. I want to win, personally. Hard work's nice, but if it gets you nowhere, well, then I think you'd get bored pretty quickly.

Hey, i agree with you 100% that talent takes you further. But all I'm saying is (personally), i'd rather root for a team filled with a bunch of York's over a bunch of Bure's. I'd rather watch guys i truely like, than guys i dont.

When it comes to a couple of recent trades between Edmonton and NYR, the student has really taken the teacher to school.

Somehow Lowe was able to take two of the softest players ever to don Oilers colours and turn them into York and Dvorak, a couple of players that have become the two most valuable 2-way forwards on the team.

If I were Lowe I'd be sending Glen a huge gift every Christmas, and I'd have him on my speed dial every trade deadline.


Truly I think it's because Slats knows what it's like the be in Kevin's shoes and dealt from the top of the deck while accepting our junk. From the bottom of my heart thanks Slats. Heck he's done more for the Oilers since he went to NY than his last 4 years here. :bow:

When Poti was dealt for, little were complaining. Most infact were cheering claiming we'd found our replacement for when Leetch retired and we only gave up a small, streaky injury prone center, who most still agree was never cut out for a full 82 games in the Eastern Conference.

And Dvorak, aside from those hardcore fans, no one complained. Carter was an absolute beast for the Oilers and everyone was excited, you can't blame Sather for Carter taking it easy, thats the coaches and players issue.

Ya hindsight is 20/20, it just happens both deals didn't work out for us, it happens, but its not like either was a ****** from the start, just happeneed to turn out that way

When Poti was dealt for, little were complaining. Most infact were cheering claiming we'd found our replacement for when Leetch retired and we only gave up a small, streaky injury prone center, who most still agree was never cut out for a full 82 games in the Eastern Conference.

And Dvorak, aside from those hardcore fans, no one complained. Carter was an absolute beast for the Oilers and everyone was excited, you can't blame Sather for Carter taking it easy, thats the coaches and players issue.

Ya hindsight is 20/20, it just happens both deals didn't work out for us, it happens, but its not like either was a ****** from the start, just happeneed to turn out that way


Dont generalize too much there. I for one was not happy one bit when i heard York was dealt. I hated the move from day one and never understood it. As for the Dvo trade, i really didnt care. Dvorak was playing horrible here, and i wanted to see him traded anyway.

When Poti was dealt for, little were complaining. Most infact were cheering claiming we'd found our replacement for when Leetch retired and we only gave up a small, streaky injury prone center, who most still agree was never cut out for a full 82 games in the Eastern Conference.

And Dvorak, aside from those hardcore fans, no one complained. Carter was an absolute beast for the Oilers and everyone was excited, you can't blame Sather for Carter taking it easy, thats the coaches and players issue.

Ya hindsight is 20/20, it just happens both deals didn't work out for us, it happens, but its not like either was a ****** from the start, just happeneed to turn out that way

Actually, as I recall, on this board, there were a lot of people were upset when the York-for-Poti trade was made. We gave up one of our best young players for a soft, offensive defenseman who never realized his potential and was being run out of Edmonton by the fans. And Sather got him because he did not want him to go to the Islanders. That is certainly no reason to make a trade. And I don't recall anyone dubbing Poti as Leetch's replacement.

Dvorak I can't say much about because I wanted him gone and I thought that Carter was going to be great here. I was wrong about Carter. But I still don't want Dvorak back.

anybody liked seeing York come, and I don't think there were too many happy with the return (Poti). Now people are a bit more disgruntled, but it was never a popular trade, at least not in here.

On Dvorak...it was mostly a mixed bag. I believe most, or at least many, felt that Dvorak needed a change of scenery, and there were also many who thought that Carter was a garbage goal-type guy, and a bit of a banger, which he wasn't.

Balej... I here you, and agree to a point. I want to see a team I like, but I also want to see wins. Wins hopefully attract guys I like, or enable guys I like to get in. the 1994 Cup was bought/mortgaged and I still enjoyed that year immensely.

Balej... I here you, and agree to a point. I want to see a team I like, but I also want to see wins. Wins hopefully attract guys I like, or enable guys I like to get in. the 1994 Cup was bought/mortgaged and I still enjoyed that year immensely.

The thing about that team (The '94 team), although it may have been "bought" the team was filled with a bunch of likeable character guys. If you take a look at it, the only real star that was not brought up through our system was Messier. Leetch, Kovy, Richter (The main "stars/flashy" players) were all brought through our system, so there is an automatic liking to those guys.

Sorry for the confusion... Edge had mentioned that the thread had become too long....that's what i mean by taking up too much space, which i don't think we have either...

York is a fave of mine, others too i assume... so the lengthy discussion is not surprising to me... but others disagree i guess

Never said it took up space but i did use it as an example of a bit much for a second line player.

I don't personally mind it, it doesn't keep me up at nights or cause me to go Howard Dean on my computer. I just find it amusing.

Heres how i look at it. I'll take Mike York over Pavel Bure any day of the week. Pavel Bure may put up 50-60 Goals a season (Lets just figure he's always healthy), but i enjoy watching Mike York work his butt off everynight. And i feel, if we, as fans, like a guy for working hard, than thats what matters.

Sure, I always wanna win. And im not saying we cant win with Mike York...but i rather lose with a bunch of guys i really like, than win with a bunch of guys i dont like at all.

But that is kind of what i mean about the hype now. We're taking York over a prime Pavel Bure?

As Fletch said that is just too unrealistic.

Don't get me wrong I like York, but I also like a lot of other ideal second line players who might be better and get 1/2 of the attention and lament that we get about York.

Never said it took up space but i did use it as an example of a bit much for a second line player.

I don't personally mind it, it doesn't keep me up at nights or cause me to go Howard Dean on my computer. I just find it amusing.


It just goes to show you what kind of player Mike York was, and how popular he was in New York...and only in a few short seasons.

But at the same time i wonder how much of that was due to being surrounded by such crap and less about what he actually was. {not that he wasn't anything}

I think York was a kid with a nice amount of talent who came in when we didn't have that and he worked hard. As a result the myth of what he actually was has gone to unfair and unrealistic levels.

I mean York over a prime Bure? That's getting a bit far fetched now.

But at the same time i wonder how much of that was due to being surrounded by such crap and less about what he actually was. {not that he wasn't anything}.


Exactly...he was a breath of fresh air. And now, hopefully we have a team full of Mike York working type players.


As for my comparison with Bure...I understand Bure is worlds better than York talent wise, but that wasnt the point i was making. All i was saying, is that in terms of likeability, i liked York more than Bure, thats all. I would rather win with a York than win with a Bure. York is just a guy you root for, hes a guy you wanna cheer for and support.

Exactly...he was a breath of fresh air. And now, hopefully we have a team full of Mike York working type players.


As for my comparison with Bure...I understand Bure is worlds better than York talent wise, but that wasnt the point i was making. All i was saying, is that in terms of likeability, i liked York more than Bure, thats all. I would rather win with a York than win with a Bure. York is just a guy you root for, hes a guy you wanna cheer for and support.

Understood.

And like I said I liked York, and I appreciated him. But I'm not totally convinced that for all that hard work, and heart and fresh air that he is a player that you could really build around. It goes back to my point about the falloffs, etc. A player like that will always be liked by me, but i just can't quite but him on the level that some would like to.

Understood.

And like I said I liked York, and I appreciated him. But I'm not totally convinced that for all that hard work, and heart and fresh air that he is a player that you could really build around. It goes back to my point about the falloffs, etc. A player like that will always be liked by me, but i just can't quite but him on the level that some would like to.

He's a guy that would be a great model to build around. He isnt a franchise center piece player like Messier or Gretzky, but he leads by example. He may be able to pick up the play of the entire team by just going out there and playing his high energy game. I do feel that if you had a team full of guys like him, you'd be in pretty good shape.

York is one of my favourite players (not being a homer, I liked him when he was a NYR). I agree with Edge that he isn't an impact type player, but imo falls just below that because of his skills and intelligent play. It's very rare to see a guy make the right play as often as York does, and he was pretty much that way when he came into the league.

His injury last year was of the freak variety, but his splits have historically been less impressive in the second half. Makes sense considering his stature, which is pretty much the only negative.

He's a tiny perfect player. I still don't know why they dealt him, but nice to see Poti getting some support (always pulled for him, he's still my son's favourite player).

that it was a good trade, rather he feels there's way too much praise for York. Some get too excited over a guy that gave 110%, forgetting that if he gave any less he would not be an NHLer, whereas some other guys can play at 75% and still be better. I think we all liked York, but he wasn't some first line perennial All Star and a team of 18 Yorks wouldn't go very far. A team with players like Poti, Kovalev and others that gave York's efforts, yes, that's a different story.

A whole team of yorks would be a perenial favorite to win the cup. The pk would be amazing and you could roll four scoring lines. The d would be small but with 3 guys back backchecking it would be swarm mentality.

I am an oiler fan and I love york. It is my opinion that sather is being good to his buddy in Edm trading good pieces like York dvorak and nedved to us. i have nothing but good things to say about york and Dvorak and Nedved scored well while he was here and gave teh oil a chance to make the playoffs.

York does use a swarm mentality, but I remember often him being swatted off the puck pretty easily. He's a nice player...a nice second/third line utility guy. It would be interesting seeing a team without a 20 goal scorer vie for the Cup on an annual basis...I've never seen that occur.

York does use a swarm mentality, but I remember often him being swatted off the puck pretty easily. He's a nice player...a nice second/third line utility guy. It would be interesting seeing a team without a 20 goal scorer vie for the Cup on an annual basis...I've never seen that occur.


I think York is capable of scoring 20 goals, I don't see why not. But of course, im gonna bring up the devils who dont rely on scoring much at all, and are constant contenders.

in the top half of scoring and have had 7, 5 and 4 20-goals scorers in each of the last three seasons, respectively. In fact, three seasons ago they had two 40 goal scorers. York can score 20 goals, but has only done it twice in his five-year NHL career.

in the top half of scoring and have had 7, 5 and 4 20-goals scorers in each of the last three seasons, respectively. In fact, three seasons ago they had two 40 goal scorers. York can score 20 goals, but has only done it twice in his five-year NHL career.

York has scored 20 + goals 3 times. The only season's he didn't were again his slight sophomore slump, and last year when he only played 60 games (but scored 16 goals), so I would say he was well on pace for another 20 goal season.

fogot his 20 goal, split-season with Edmonton. And like I said previously, I don't extrapolate (i.e., Daniel Goneau has not had a 20 goal NHL season despite scoring 10 in 41, and if you drilled down further and understood how his ice time diminished over the lats 10 games, it would extrapolate out even furtuer). Either you score 20 goals or you don't. If you miss games, you're of no help to your team. Noone extrapolates league leaders to determine scoring titles, and considering York once did a 2-goal in 25 games in his career, 16 in 60 doesn't necessarily equate to 20.

My goodness will this thread ever end?

Yorkie is a fan favorite and like all fan favorites, he is somewhat overrated by those who favor him. Those who do not share those sentiments tend to overreact to this overrating by being overly critical.

I dont think anyone is being overly critical. But it is rather funny that one half of the doom and gloom tandem is commenting like that ;)

Just ribbin ya Laches.

My goodness will this thread ever end?

Not if people keep asking, "when will it end?". ;)

At least we're not discussing the lockout.

Hey it's the HFboards equivalent of "are we there yet?"

fogot his 20 goal, split-season with Edmonton. And like I said previously, I don't extrapolate (i.e., Daniel Goneau has not had a 20 goal NHL season despite scoring 10 in 41, and if you drilled down further and understood how his ice time diminished over the lats 10 games, it would extrapolate out even furtuer). Either you score 20 goals or you don't. If you miss games, you're of no help to your team. Noone extrapolates league leaders to determine scoring titles, and considering York once did a 2-goal in 25 games in his career, 16 in 60 doesn't necessarily equate to 20.

I was just correcting you, because everytime you list York's stats they happen to be wrong.


I wasn't extrapolating, I said it was my opinion that he was on pace for a 20 goal season last year considering he was almost there and only played 3/4 of the season. When you score 16 in 60 games there is a very good percentage he would net 4 more goals in the last 22 games, that's why I said he was "on pace" for 20.

Hey it's the HFboards equivalent of "are we there yet?"


hahaha, that's a good way to look at it Edge. In that case....


I will continue to argue that Mike York is the greatest thing to happen to the New York Rangers since...Pat Verbeek.

Ahhh, i may have just thrown a twist into this thread ;)

I wasn't extrapolating, I said it was my opinion that he was on pace for a 20 goal season last year considering he was almost there and only played 3/4 of the season. When you score 16 in 60 games there is a very good percentage he would net 4 more goals in the last 22 games, that's why I said he was "on pace" for 20.

That is extrapolating...

if there's a really good percentage that he would score four more, and I don't think you can say. Who'd have thought he'd score 2 in 25? Perhaps in the last 10 games he scored 6 goals; what are the chances that in the next 10 he'd score 6, perhaps 1 or 2 would be more like it and that still would be 7 ot 8 in 20 (on pace for 28-32).

Like I've said...there is no stat for what would have been had someone played all 82 games. When someone say a player has a 20 goal season...he has scored 20 goals, whether it's 20 games, 30 games, 82 games, or more. There's no he would have scored...

Oh...and I believe I've been wrong with York's stats once. When checking it the first time, I didn't add up the 18 and 2, since he was traded it was on two different lines. Sorry, I was off by two goals (which cannot be further extrapolated since he did play in 81 games that season - it comes to 20.25 goals, rounded down to 20).

Well whether we like it or not we have to take missed games as part of the package. That's one thing that was my point to begin with.

Funny how for years it was a factor when people talked about a guy like Lindros but we're a little less eager to use it for a guy like York.

{shrugs} Reality is what it is.

Funny how for years it was a factor when people talked about a guy like Lindros but we're a little less eager to use it for a guy like York.

I would like to think someone who's 6'4" 240 is more durable than someone who's 5'10" 185. I can't remember York being sidelined for weeks following incidental contact off the ice either, but I guess that little "dig" proves your point.

Players we hate are held to a different standard than players we love. As a wise man once said, "reality is what it is".

Wasn't this York's first time missing extended playing time in his career, last year?

I thought he was hurt for a bit the year before too, but I really cannot remember at this point. I'm actually all Yorked-out. And for the record, I really do like the guy.

he played 71 games the year before last. I'm not gonna kill him for missing 11 games. Prior to that, he never really missed any games (Basically for the Rangers).

1999-00 New-York Rangers NHL 82 26 24 50 18 -- -- -- -- --
2000-01 New-York Rangers NHL 79 14 17 31 20 -- -- -- -- --
2001-02 New-York Rangers NHL 69 18 39 57 16 -- -- -- -- --
2001-02 Edmonton Oilers NHL 12 2 2 4 0 -- -- -- -- --
2002-03 Edmonton Oilers NHL 71 22 29 51 10 6 0 2 2 2
2003-04 Edmonton Oilers NHL 61 16 26 42 15 -- -- -- -- --


thats just to end all the stat disputes for Mike York.

btw, York is playing in the DEL for the Roosters, and is leading the team in scoring by a wide margin. I understand he's not playing against the best competition in the world, but i just thought id throw that out there.

Mike York C 27 9 27 36 36 -6

Another piece of info on York...

As we know, York was picked in the '97 draft, in the 6th round...

He is currently 5th in scoring overall out of all players picked in that draft.

Oh...and I believe I've been wrong with York's stats once. When checking it the first time, I didn't add up the 18 and 2, since he was traded it was on two different lines.


York's never hit 60 points, I believe, much less has been a consistent 60-point point getter.



Seems like atleast twice in this thread.


That is extrapolating...


I simply said he was on pace for 20 goals.

To me extrapolating would have been to say Mike York would have scored 22 goals if he didn't get hurt because he averaged .26 goals a game that season.

btw, York is playing in the DEL for the Roosters, and is leading the team in scoring by a wide margin. I understand he's not playing against the best competition in the world, but i just thought id throw that out there.

The Roosters are one of, if not the weakest team in the DEL.
But yes, he is playing nicely over here. :)

I would like to think someone who's 6'4" 240 is more durable than someone who's 5'10" 185. I can't remember York being sidelined for weeks following incidental contact off the ice either, but I guess that little "dig" proves your point.

Players we hate are held to a different standard than players we love. As a wise man once said, "reality is what it is".


Call it a dig if ya want to. But for the record i was referring to Lindros in his prime and i also believe size isn't always a factor. If that were the case Marcel Dionne wouldn't have scored 1700 points which says nothing of Yzerman, etc. etc.

But the fact is human nature does create different levels of standards for people. If that concept offends anyone, than so be it.

But I'm with Fletch, i'm all yorked out at this point. The points have been said, not much more to say that would be new.

Call it a dig if ya want to. But for the record i was referring to Lindros in his prime and i also believe size isn't always a factor. If that were the case Marcel Dionne wouldn't have scored 1700 points which says nothing of Yzerman, etc. etc.

But the fact is human nature does create different levels of standards for people. If that concept offends anyone, than so be it.

But I'm with Fletch, i'm all yorked out at this point. The points have been said, not much more to say that would be ne