Rangers Can't Afford To Make Rj Mistake

http://nypost.com/sports/18598.htm

So by the sounds of it no Umberger. Charachter is something you cant teach and if he dosent have it, id rather not have him on the rangers. I think it has been pretty obvious from the beginning that he has his sight set on Pittsburgh. Still, we aquired him for affectively nothing so why should we complain.

So what will our picks look like now including the 46th?

Our 1st (6th)
Toronto 1st
Montreals 2nd
Edmontons 2nd
Umerger compensation 2nd (46th)
Philly's 2nd
Colorado's 2nd

Drfat day should be fun :banana:

So by the sounds of it no Umberger. Charachter is something you cant teach and if he dosent have it, id rather not have him on the rangers. I think it has been pretty obvious from the beginning that he has his sight set on Pittsburgh. Still, we aquired him for affectively nothing so why should we complain.

So what will our picks look like now including the 46th?

Our 1st (6th)
Toronto 1st
Montreals 2nd
Edmontons 2nd
Umerger compensation 2nd (46th)
Philly's 2nd
Colorado's 2nd

Drfat day should be fun :banana:

I think that colorado's 2nd is actually florida's 2nd (which colorado had previously aquired), so it's alot higher up in the round. :banana:

This is a huge effin' mistake. Umberger is the better choice than the #46 pick, plain and simple. And some people question why some of us absolutely do not trust Jackass with anything that has to do with rebuilding.

Love this:

"So maybe this summer the Rangers will actually hire a full-time goaltending coach to replace part-timer Sam St. Laurent, not of course, that their finish at 27th overall in goals-against indicates they may need some support in that area.

"I don't know the inner workings there, but I don't understand why they don't have someone working with the goalies every day," Martin Brodeur wondered on Friday. "Not having a goaltender coach? Would a baseball team not have a pitching coach? Would a football team not have a quarterback coach? I don't understand it.""

We've only been saying this for how many years now? How could you have an 18 year old goaltender that you thrust into 18 straight starts and NOT have a full time goalie coach? Sather's response? Essentially telling Blackburn not to whine and to work through it himself. :help:

about the Rangers this season - more than usual. He must be coming up on free agency and is almost due to be a Ranger.

And I don't know about Umberger. Vancouver did pass on the kid, in essence, and the Rangers do not need a 21 year old loafer at this point. I've never seen him play, so it's tough for me to blindly agree to that, but that's all I'm going on at this point.

I've never seen him play, so it's tough for me to blindly agree to that, but that's all I'm going on at this point.

Exactly.. I don't know if he's worth his asking price or not, but going by the information we have, he seems more worried about getting his number than making an NHL team..

That could be waaayyy off, but I don't see any urgency on his part to sign. Of course, since he could become a UFA, maybe there is no reason for urgency, but that just tells me that he's looking for a payoff, not to be a cornerstone of a rebuilding franchise.

I know the Rangers have wasted more money, on bigger flops, but I don't mind them holding strong in this case. If they give him a bunch of dough for doing nothing yet, then what does that say to the other kids who have been working their ***** off in HFD or Jr's for the last couple of seasons, and have actually spilled some guts for the franchise?..

Eh, no urgency on either parties part, when you think about it.

If RJ wants a max deal, his best opportunity for that is to wait until he's a UFA and let the bidding war drive up his price. Why sign with the Rangers, even if they did offer the max? Sure, a little security during the lockout would be nice. But he's only 21. He and his agent have to know that someone's going to bid on him to play in the AHL next year, lockout or no. If he waits, he can presumably get match money, and he can pick his destination.

From the Rangers perspective, why sign him now? He's not going to play on the Wolfpack while they're in the playoffs and he hasn't played hockey in a year. So his development season is shot. Signing him to be the 'bird in hand' is nice, but not if it costs you a second round pick and you have to give him the biggest deal available. If you think he's worth the biggest deal possible, why not wait and outbid everyone else after he's a UFA, and get the 2nd round pick?

All that, and the Rangers are apparently not totally sold on the kids attitude (and clearly the Canucks weren't . . .) eh. I appreciate that the Rangers could get burnt. But I'm not exactly terrified on this one.

agree 10000000000% on the fulltime goalie coach...and next year if blackburn and/or lundqvist are in hartford they need that coach in hartford more than ny, but there is no reason why the rangers can't afford to have a fulltime coach in both places

on umberger, think of it this way. what incentive does either side have to sign a deal right now??

umberger won't sign a tryout deal meaning he can't play in the ahl playoffs, so after todays pack game he wouldn't play until next year...

whether a deal gets signed today or june 1st or after june 2nd, there is no difference for either side except the rangers can tell people to stop asking about it

and sather is all about taking advantage of loopholes. i'm 100% convinced that he plans to 'beat the system' by signing umberger after june 2nd so he can get umberger AND the system and then boast about how smart he is...and while there is no guarantee it will work, i think that negative comments are just to make it look like there was a dispute when people complain about a pre-arranged deal (big question is whether or not the 'genius' informed umberger of his little plan)

I hate to defend the Rangers scouting.... but I have to say that if they thought highly enough about Umberger, then they would have to get his name on a contract. If they felt he was an impact player, then they would find a way to get it done. There are obviously questions about his character. We dont need a guy like Daigle anywhere around this young team.

I also wouldnt be surprised if they tried to sign him after the deadline, thus getting the pick, and player.

This is a huge effin' mistake. Umberger is the better choice than the #46 pick, plain and simple. And some people question why some of us absolutely do not trust Jackass with anything that has to do with rebuilding.

Love this:

"So maybe this summer the Rangers will actually hire a full-time goaltending coach to replace part-timer Sam St. Laurent, not of course, that their finish at 27th overall in goals-against indicates they may need some support in that area.

"I don't know the inner workings there, but I don't understand why they don't have someone working with the goalies every day," Martin Brodeur wondered on Friday. "Not having a goaltender coach? Would a baseball team not have a pitching coach? Would a football team not have a quarterback coach? I don't understand it.""

We've only been saying this for how many years now? How could you have an 18 year old goaltender that you thrust into 18 straight starts and NOT have a full time goalie coach? Sather's response? Essentially telling Blackburn not to whine and to work through it himself. :help:

how many times have you seen umberger play? how has he looked in practice the past 3 weeks? you must know if you think umberger is a better choice that the #46 pick.

do you realize that two teams have had problem with umberger and his agent. If Sather signs this kid and he is a bust than what.

hmm if larry brooks writes it of course you have to agree with it. Perhaps you don't remember that Blackburn was living with JD. do you have a original thoughts or do you just wait for brooks to write something

You can't argue with what Marty said. It's ridiculous there is no full time goalie coach here. When the best goalie in the league has a full time goalie coach, that tells you something about how important it is.

I hate to defend the Rangers scouting.... but I have to say that if they thought highly enough about Umberger, then they would have to get his name on a contract.

I personally don't trust anyone in that front office, and part of it has to do with when they picked Jessiman over Parise. I just really think they should have picked Parise, and now the kid will most likely go on to be a great player in freakin NJ. Maybe I'm wrong, but you know the Rangers luck doesn't always go in their favor and they took a big chance on Hugh. It just always seems they have guys rated higher on their lists than everyone else. I've read that a lot when they've said they had so and so rated higher than he was. Sometimes I just wonder how good our scouting really is.

I'm such a pessimist lol.

hmm if larry brooks writes it of course you have to agree with it. Perhaps you don't remember that Blackburn was living with JD. do you have a original thoughts or do you just wait for brooks to write something
It's when you say things like this, that you point out just how ignorant you really are. It's things like this that expose you for the utter cretin you truly are.
Let me refresh what must be a hazy memory for you. We all know how much you love the selective memory and selective quoting. Since you have forgotten, let me refresh you. When Blackburn was a rookie, we were remarking how stupid it is to have an 18 year old w/o a goalie coach. When he was struggling and commented that he may need coaching, it was Sather who riduculed the notion that he needs a coach. Maybe you have forgotten that or are just choosing not to recall any of this. We all (except you as we all know, in your eyes Jackass is never wrong) ranted and raved. And Brooks wrote nothing about lack of a coach at the time.
The in Blackburn's sophmore year, he was pressed into starting 18 games in a row. And we once again remarked that the kid really needs a full-time coach. And once again Sather said that Blackburn should be able to get through anything on his own. One of the things that we focused on at the time was a comment that was made by Broduer when he said that one of the most important things in his career has been his coach. And once again we ranted and raved at the foolishness of being THE ONLY team in hockey w/o a full-time goalie coach. If Broduer was a vet remarking on the importance of a goalie coach, then who could Blackburn, a 19 year old, be without one? Have you choosen to forget this as well?
And now Brooks write a peice on it, and you go out and make yourself look like an idiot by criticizing the criticism of the need for a full-time coach and by essentially making even more of an idiot out of yourself becuase you just got nailed talking out of our a$$.
There have been 2 people who have made every effort to drag down the level of our little community here. You and Pasha. Next time you time you want to make a feeble effort to argue, I suggest you brush up on your facts.

i think most of us here agree that it's rediculus that the rangers don't have a goale coach, there's no need for you to press that point any further. I think the question is, why do you think so strongly that umberger is a better choice than the 46th pick and what in your expirience with him has lead you to come to this conclusion?

i think most of us here agree that it's rediculus that the rangers don't have a goale coach, there's no need for you to press that point any further. I think the question is, why do you think so strongly that umberger is a better choice than the 46th pick and what in your expirience with him has lead you to come to this conclusion?

The fact that Umberger was the 16th overall pick two years ago. I've personally never seen him play so I cant tell you from my own experience, but from everything I've read and heard about him he has great potential. That and the fact that the Rangers farm system has nobody on the horizon who's projected to be anything close to a top line center. We have depth, but not much top end talent. Despite Umberger's question marks, he still has more potential than anything you could probably pick up in the 2nd round of an average-at-best draft.

The fact that Umberger was the 16th overall pick two years ago. I've personally never seen him play so I cant tell you from my own experience, but from everything I've read and heard about him he has great potential. That and the fact that the Rangers farm system has nobody on the horizon who's projected to be anything close to a top line center. We have depth, but not much top end talent. Despite Umberger's question marks, he still has more potential than anything you could probably pick up in the 2nd round of an average-at-best draft.

i think the more pressing issue is that the guy is refusing to play for anything less than a max contract. He's proved nothing to diserve that kind of money, and i think after 7 years of being run by overpaid malcontents that it would be in the interest of this organization not to let a 21 year old kid who hasn't played in a year dictate terms to them. If sather does it right (big if i know) then rebuilding should meen more than just bringing in youth, it should meen not letting the players run the show. If umberger thinks he can get a million a year on the open market then let him walk, i highly doubt that anyone's gonna pay an unproven kid who hasn't played in a year that kind of money. This team needs talent, but it also needs a new attitude, and it definatly doesn't need a 21 year old hold out who's yet to play even on the AHL level.

Sign the damn guy. Would you guys trade our first rounder this year for a 2006 early second rounder? Of course not. He is a 21 year old who is nasty at hockey and could possibly contribute as early as next season(lockout). Hell, if I was amazing and was thought to have such a bright future than I would be looking to get the best contract also. Why would I worry about making an NHL team instead of $$ when I KNOW that teams will be lining up to bid on me in a month or so. Obviously those teams think I am good enough to make an NHL club so what do I have to worry about. Think about it, the burden is on Sather at this point, RJ can just wait it out and have the best offer come to him. It's a smart business descision.

And I dont know what some of you guys are thinking with the whole "bad attitude" statements. He is 21 years old and has dominated every level of hockey he has played in, why wouldnt he be stoked and have a swagger about him? I sure as hell would. I embrace a change where we have players with personality and a swagger about them. Flamboyant personalities give an identity to a team and gives us fans a more personal way to connect with our team. When Fleury chicken-danced and McCarthy(i hate him) talked himself up I loved it it and it made me feel closer to the Rangers and added to my hatred of the Isles.

I'm just wondering why Burke would have drafted a "selfish lazy" guy in the first place.

Since I've never seen him play (not that I'd have a clue as to how good an NHLer he'd be if I had), I can't judge his talent. The Canucks must've seen SOME potential or they wouldn't have drafted him that high.

why do you think so strongly that umberger is a better choice than the 46th pick and what in your expirience with him has lead you to come to this conclusion?
Have I ever seen him play personally? No, not him. However I can arrive at a few educated guesses. Umberger was a # 16 pick overall. While not always the rule, by and large #6 picks overall have done better than #46 overall. He already is 6'2". So he is still very young and already has good size. He currently projects as a 2nd line center or, if he excells as a first line player. He has played very well at all levels of competition. The only forward that qualifies as that, from all the Sather trades is Balej. At least the only forward that is in this country and has played very well against North American competition. I would say that that is another step into a possible projection that he has the potential to do well.
You say that holding out for a contract makes him undesirable? I say, who cares? You don't know that this is the sign of a prima-donna. Players like to get as much as they can. How many times did Messier exert pressure in his negotiations? Didn't Comrie hold out? He did, but I would still love to have him. Brendan Witt held out as well.
And lastly, how many times have the Rangers made mistakes by overpaying old and washed up veterans? This is what I would classify as a good financial risk as opposed to a poor one. It's not like paying him the $250k-$500k more that he wants would really make such an impact towards any kind of future cap or luxury tax.
If you're really rebuilding, how can you not sign this kid? How can you just allow a former top 16 pick in a draft, with size that is screaming NHL power forward in a few years and talent to boot, just walk away without even giving him a shot?

It's when you say things like this, that you point out just how ignorant you really are. It's things like this that expose you for the utter cretin you truly are.
Let me refresh what must be a hazy memory for you. We all know how much you love the selective memory and selective quoting. Since you have forgotten, let me refresh you. When Blackburn was a rookie, we were remarking how stupid it is to have an 18 year old w/o a goalie coach. When he was struggling and commented that he may need coaching, it was Sather who riduculed the notion that he needs a coach. Maybe you have forgotten that or are just choosing not to recall any of this. We all (except you as we all know, in your eyes Jackass is never wrong) ranted and raved. And Brooks wrote nothing about lack of a coach at the time.
The in Blackburn's sophmore year, he was pressed into starting 18 games in a row. And we once again remarked that the kid really needs a full-time coach. And once again Sather said that Blackburn should be able to get through anything on his own. One of the things that we focused on at the time was a comment that was made by Broduer when he said that one of the most important things in his career has been his coach. And once again we ranted and raved at the foolishness of being THE ONLY team in hockey w/o a full-time goalie coach. If Broduer was a vet remarking on the importance of a goalie coach, then who could Blackburn, a 19 year old, be without one? Have you choosen to forget this as well?
And now Brooks write a peice on it, and you go out and make yourself look like an idiot by criticizing the criticism of the need for a full-time coach and by essentially making even more of an idiot out of yourself becuase you just got nailed talking out of our a$$.
There have been 2 people who have made every effort to drag down the level of our little community here. You and Pasha. Next time you time you want to make a feeble effort to argue, I suggest you brush up on your facts.
hmm living with a goaltender who watches him practice everyday must be bad for a young hockey player. should the rangers have a goaltender coach? i think they do but i understand why they didn't. Richter really didn't need one. Heck i bet with Richter around his first season and half as a ranger blackburn learned quite a bit.

i notice that you never saw umberger play but still don't trust ryan mcgill (your choice for future coach) mcgill has worked this kid for 3 weeks and perhaps has seen for himself what burke saw. umberger has no heart.
btw sather has been wrong about a few things while he has been here and i have called him out it. brooks lies everyweek to you in his column yet you still quote him. i'm sorry true brooks if i hurt your feelings. :naughty:

perhaps the rangers don't want another lundmark on there hands a useless young player that has no role.

I think at this point some people would take the #46 overall pick in this season's draft for a lot of former number ones over the last few seasons. One does need to question why Sather should shell out $1+ million for this kid aside from the reason that there are few prospects in the organization and it's only money. One also needs to assess why Vancouver was willing to give a teammate of his more money, who was a year younger, and you was a second round pick. Maybe Sather's willing to wait this out, get the #46 pick, and take a chance that nobody out there offers more than $800K, and Sather comes in and trumps them. As a GM, if you have any leverage, or think you have it, you don't want to lose it.

having Richter around and a full-time coach are two totally different things. If you're committing to keeping an 18 year old on your roster, you need to nurture and develop him, and that's a full-time job.

Have I ever seen him play personally? No, not him. However I can arrive at a few educated guesses. Umberger was a # 16 pick overall. While not always the rule, by and large #6 picks overall have done better than #46 overall. He already is 6'2". So he is still very young and already has good size. He currently projects as a 2nd line center or, if he excells as a first line player. He has played very well at all levels of competition. The only forward that qualifies as that, from all the Sather trades is Balej. At least the only forward that is in this country and has played very well against North American competition. I would say that that is another step into a possible projection that he has the potential to do well.
You say that holding out for a contract makes him undesirable? I say, who cares? You don't know that this is the sign of a prima-donna. Players like to get as much as they can. How many times did Messier exert pressure in his negotiations? Didn't Comrie hold out? He did, but I would still love to have him. Brendan Witt held out as well.
And lastly, how many times have the Rangers made mistakes by overpaying old and washed up veterans? This is what I would classify as a good financial risk as opposed to a poor one. It's not like paying him the $250k-$500k more that he wants would really make such an impact towards any kind of future cap or luxury tax.
If you're really rebuilding, how can you not sign this kid? How can you just allow a former top 16 pick in a draft, with size that is screaming NHL power forward in a few years and talent to boot, just walk away without even giving him a shot?
hmm the rangers have made mistakes with money in the past so why not make more hmm?
yeah messier held out after the rangers won there only cup in he past 64 years but he didn't deserve to hold out. lets get your facts straight. i know you have no respect for messier but messier was promised a new contract if the rangers won the cup.
he projects as a second line center perhaps you would like to add source to that. how can you say that if you have never seen him play? :speechles
you whine about money spent and the new cba and future salary cap yet you don't mind wasting money on somebody that has no heart. we already have another young player like that. lundmark.

hmm the rangers have made mistakes with money in the past so why not make more hmm?
yeah messier held out after the rangers won there only cup in he past 64 years but he didn't deserve to hold out. lets get your facts straight. i know you have no respect for messier but messier was promised a new contract if the rangers won the cup.
he projects as a second line center perhaps you would like to add source to that. how can you say that if you have never seen him play? :speechles
you whine about money spent and the new cba and future salary cap yet you don't mind wasting money on somebody that has no heart. we already have another young player like that. lundmark.

This drips of irony. How can you say Umberger has no heart when you haven't seen him play? If you want a source to find out about his potential, go to the Prospects Board and ask people who have seen him play. I'm willing to bet most would agree with TB's assessment.

Its one thing to complain about throwing big money and long term contracts at veterans with question marks because of the impending salary cap. Its another thing to refuse to give a top prospect the extra couple $100K it would take to sign him and then use the new CBA as an excuse. We're talking about pocket change here, not millions of dollars.

And when has anybody said that they dont have any respect for Messier? Leaving New York for more money might have left a bad taste in his mouth, but any sensible Ranger fan will forever be grateful to Messier for leading us to the Cup. Doesn't mean Neil Smith should curtail to all of his demands.

Have I ever seen him play personally? No, not him. However I can arrive at a few educated guesses. Umberger was a # 16 pick overall. While not always the rule, by and large #6 picks overall have done better than #46 overall. He already is 6'2". So he is still very young and already has good size. He currently projects as a 2nd line center or, if he excells as a first line player. He has played very well at all levels of competition. The only forward that qualifies as that, from all the Sather trades is Balej. At least the only forward that is in this country and has played very well against North American competition. I would say that that is another step into a possible projection that he has the potential to do well.
You say that holding out for a contract makes him undesirable? I say, who cares? You don't know that this is the sign of a prima-donna. Players like to get as much as they can. How many times did Messier exert pressure in his negotiations? Didn't Comrie hold out? He did, but I would still love to have him. Brendan Witt held out as well.
And lastly, how many times have the Rangers made mistakes by overpaying old and washed up veterans? This is what I would classify as a good financial risk as opposed to a poor one. It's not like paying him the $250k-$500k more that he wants would really make such an impact towards any kind of future cap or luxury tax.
If you're really rebuilding, how can you not sign this kid? How can you just allow a former top 16 pick in a draft, with size that is screaming NHL power forward in a few years and talent to boot, just walk away without even giving him a shot?

Your comparing mark messier to rj umberger, are you nuts? Messier had earned some leverage, this kid hasn't earned anything. Theres a huge differance between an all time hockey great (or in the case of comrie and witt, a rising star and an established player) holding out and a kid who's never played pro hockey on any level. This kids overrating his worth when he's never played a minute in the NHL, that just reeks of primadonna. As much as i want to see talent on this team, i don't wanna see the players running the show, becouse if you look back at the last 7 years it's been that attitude, rather than a talent deficiency thats been the problem.
Maybe if umberger was a major can't miss prospect putting up big numbers you could make some consesions, but he's not. He's a talented offesive player, but almost every scounting report says that he's a defensive liablilty. This isn't Alexander Ovechkin, he's a good prospect but he needs alot of work. Not to mention the fact that he's lost a year of development now.
If umberger wants to be reasonable then i'm all for signing him, but if he wants to demand a millio per then he can walk. He's crazy if he thinks he's getting that after sitting out a year with the leauge looking at a new cba, no one's going to give it to him.
The team needs to be rebuilt in both body and mind, new talent, new philosphy. That new philosphy shouldn't include giving into the demands of players that haven't proven anything.

Umberger seems to have some type of problem... If he did want to come to Pittsburgh this offseason, I don't know how I'd feel about that. The last thing we need is an issue to deal with... I really don't know what to think about this guy, between all the hoop-la and speculation. Guess we'll all find out this summer. :dunno:

Your comparing mark messier to rj umberger, are you nuts?

Maybe if umberger was a major can't miss prospect putting up big numbers you could make some consesions, but he's not. He's a talented offesive player, but almost every scounting report says that he's a defensive liablilty. This isn't Alexander Ovechkin, he's a good prospect but he needs alot of work.

Yes, I'm comparing Umberger to Messier, but only in terms of holding out for more $$$. You can't call Umberger a primadonna for holding out for more cash, but absolve even a great player such as Messier for doing the exact same thing. And as I said, you want more examples of those who held out? How about Comrie? How about Brendan Witt? They look pretty good now and any holdouts are a distant memory. History annals are littered with such examples. Wanting more $$$ does not make one a primmadonna.

As to your second point, well this is the problem of getting into the "Have you ever seen him play" debates. While undoubtedly, there are those who are on this board who have seen a good deal of these prospects play a good deal of time, I would wager that the majority have not actually seen these guys play at all. So it should be dully noted that at this juncture Ovechkin stands about as good a chance as being the next Maryo as he does the next Daigle. You cannot crucify Umberger for wanting more cash becuase he is the 16th overall pick and exempt Ovechkin, if he were to do something similar, just becuase he is the 1st overall pick.
And to be, signing Umberger for an extra $250-500k is a good risk. As opposed to shelling out $3m on a vet that is bound to underperform. When you are a rebuilding team, you take chances on kids like this as opposed to bringing in the next 33 year old, looking for nothing more than a payout.

Fletch,

"One does need to question why Sather should shell out $1+ million for this kid aside from the reason that there are few prospects in the organization and it's only money. One also needs to assess why Vancouver was willing to give a teammate of his more money, who was a year younger, and you was a second round pick."

I cannot state why Burke would not give the kid the $$$. But he had to have seen enough in his game to draft him #16, didn't he? As for Jackass, do you really want to go down this road? He has a history of nickle and diming kids to try to show then who is boss, but bending over backwards for over-the-hill vets. Again, to me giving Umberger an extra $250-500k is a good risk. As opposed to giving the next Karpa, Driver, Ulanov, Oliwa, or whomever else, an extra 2 or 3 million.

Glenjar,

"hmm living with a goaltender who watches him practice everyday must be bad for a young hockey player. should the rangers have a goaltender coach? i think they do but i understand why they didn't. Richter really didn't need one. "

Have you totally lost it? So becuase Richter did not need one, then Blackburn did not need one? Because an arguably Hall of Famer did not need one then an 18 year-old does not? Call me crazy, but I am betting that when Broduer says that one of the most important things in his career has been his goalie coach, I would tend to think that he knows what he is talking about.
And watching Richter does not do nearly as much as you claim. Yes, Richter can teach sheer work ethic. But a good goaltending coach, Mikey would not make. You cannot teach what Richter did. Those post to post splits were sheer athleticism. Richter's technique was not the greatest, but his athleticism was second to none. And, for whatever reason, EVERY OTHER NHL team seems to think that a goalie coach is fairly important, so they have one. The Rangers, the most backwards oraganization is all of sports, seem to think that an 18 year old goalie does not need one. But since the Rangers have such a long track record of doing things that make sense, one can see which view seems like the more reasonable one. The rest of the league or Sather's? :huh:

"yeah messier held out after the rangers won there only cup in he past 64 years but he didn't deserve to hold out. lets get your facts straight. i know you have no respect for messier but messier was promised a new contract if the rangers won the cup"

My facts are straight. I stated that Messier held out for $$$. Is that not a fact? What is also a fact is that nowhere have I ever stated that I do not respect Messier. To me, holding out for more cash is holding out for more cash. Makes no difference if you are Umberger, Messier, or a $2 hooker. They are all holding out for the same reason.

"he projects as a second line center perhaps you would like to add source to that. how can you say that if you have never seen him play?"

I'm willing to bet that at least 90% of the people here have never seen Ovechkin play, but yet somehow his projection as a 1st line player is agreed upon. And if you want to know my sources for Umberger, I suggest that you read CSB's scouting report on him or even HF's scouting report on him. Or any other publication.

at this point, I could care less if RJ was drafted first overall, or 270th overall. That point is moot. Yeah, Burke saw something to draft him at #16, but for some reason did see him enough to give him $1+ million, nor did he see enough to give him the same amount that was given to a younger teammate (at OSU). So something has faded.

As for nickel and diming...not sure that too many 'kids' have been nickeled and dimed since his tenure. He's signed a good deal of UFAs out of college, and has gone after a few more, but not every under 25 year old UFA can be signed by the Rangers.

but not every under 25 year old UFA can be signed by the Rangers.
Not every one can, but THIS one CAN. And it's not like we are talking about a college free-agent who was bypassed in the draft. We are talking about a former #16 pick. The only reason that the kid has not played yet is becuase of a contract dispute, not performance. He has performed well enough in his amatuer career to make Burke take him ahead of lots of others. He kid obvioulsy has talent. Is the extra $250-500k really worth not taking a shot on a talented kid? The Rangers have made tons of bad $$$ mistakes before, giving it to people whom we all knew were not worth it. We're talking about an extra $250-500k here, not $3m. To me an extra $500 thousand and an RJ Umberger is much better than the #46 pick in this year's draft. Just my opinion.

I'm 100% w/TB on this issue.

To me it is a no brainer to ink the kid.People get all hung up w/this contract dispute nonsense and despite the fact that Van offered him less then others in a comprable situation people still paint the kid in ways that may or may not be true but at this point have been painted as fact.

One thing is indisputable and that is if you go by numbers and probailities the potential of this kid vs getting a better prospect at #46 are HEAVILY in RJ's favor.

The kid has the skills, an NHL ready body and nice hieght for a possible top 2 line center and the fact that he was able to put himslef in this situation while working within the rules of the CBA should not be used against him.

EVERY single one of us would do the same thing in his spot if we felt we were getting lowballed and had this as an available option.

For all the $$$ we piss away these are the type of risks that a team looking to rebuild needs to take.

The risk/reward makes this an absolute no brainer as to why it should be done but with this a-hole Slats nothing suprises me anymore. :banghead:

This whole scenario with RJ Umberger, the Rangers and the draft pick is not only confusing but very, very strange.

I was all for signing RJ when he was first traded for. The Rangers needed youth and the center position was not a strong point. But something strange is going on. The posturing on both sides is amazing. We have to look at the facts available to try and figure this out.

I am beginning to believe that RJ is getting some real bad advice from Brian Lawton, his agent. With the uncertainty of the new CBA, the priority for RJ should be to return to playing hockey. He has sat out the entire year and lost a year of development time. This is a big factor. Some kids never recover from lost time.

Maybe the Rangers are looking elsewhere because they didn't like his game or attitude. I don't know, but with Renney going over for the WC's, he will get a look at Jarkko Immonen, who maybe is as good if not better then RJ. Maybe Peter Prucha is better already or Jan Marek will come over.

No one really knows, unless they are inside the heads of Ranger management.

All I know, is for this kid (and his agent)to continually posture about wanting the rookie max contract, he is making himself look like a money hungry, self centered kid.

If he is as good as he thinks he is, sign a reasonable contract and start playing as soon as possible. If he signs, he can play for Hartford in the playoffs.

Here is a message for RJ:

Start showing why you were drafted 16th overall. Sign a reasonable contract, even if it is less than you believe you are worth. It would only be a 2 year contract. So for two years, play hockey and prove your critics wrong. If you are as good as you think, then you can prove yourself on the ice. Get back into game shape, quickly and continue to improve. Your future hockey career and contracts will depend on how you play now.

Don't understand the point about Burke taking him ahead of a lot of others, based on his amateur career. I think he had one year under his belt when he was drafted, so that's confusing.

And it's not an extra $250K. To go above the Vancouver offer it's about $400K. And we would be kicking ourselves in the butt in two years if Umberger's a lazy oaf who takes off shifts and the #46 pick ends up being a hard-working (let's say third liner) that becomes a fan favorite.

See, New York is not patient. You want this kid signed because he's already 21 and a former first round pick - has decent size, but who knows if he actually uses it. That's about all most of us know about him. Oh yeah, and in college he was a good scorer. Might as well sign him to $1+ million and take a chance, because we've had failures with UFAs in the past and he can probably unload him at some point like he did Ciger, Karpa and Ulanov, three of the worst UFA signees. But of course if he signs RJ for what he wants, he has to sign Jessiman (assuming he comes through) for what he wants. As well, the same will apply to this year's #1, and maybe he has difficulty with guys like Helminan, etc., all because he signed Umberger for what he wanted.

Don't understand the point about Burke taking him ahead of a lot of others, based on his amateur career. I think he had one year under his belt when he was drafted, so that's confusing.

And it's not an extra $250K. To go above the Vancouver offer it's about $400K. And we would be kicking ourselves in the butt in two years if Umberger's a lazy oaf who takes off shifts and the #46 pick ends up being a hard-working (let's say third liner) that becomes a fan favorite.


The point is that Burke has seen enough of Umberger as an amatuer to be convinced that the kid is a #16 pick and not a 2nd rounder. And I have been saying all along that we're talking betweem $250k & $500k. Ok, it's $400k. $400k is not going to break this org or drive it over any type of cap or luxury tax.
Just as we may be kicking ourselves if Umberger is a lazy oaf and the #46 is a hardworking 3rd liner, imagine the kicking that will go on if Umberber is a big top 3 line center and the #46 pick is the next Lee Fardleau (after all, if Jackass can take him at #33, he can take him at #46.)

To me, investing an extra $400k in Umberber represents a good risk. The kid has shown promise in his amatuer career. As JR said, he has a ready NHL body and will only get bigger. There have been plenty of rookies that have held out for $$$ that went on to have very good careers. Historically, which do you think have had better careers, the #16 pick or the #46 picks? $400k is what stands between us and a prospect that can be a top 2 line player. Is it altogether wise to just squander this shot?

Just as we may be kicking ourselves if Umberger is a lazy oaf and the #46 is a hardworking 3rd liner, imagine the kicking that will go on if Umberber is a big top 3 line center and the #46 pick is the next Lee Fardleau (after all, if Jackass can take him at #33, he can take him at #46.)



And as I said if you are a #'s guy or wanted to play probabilities then that would certainly dictate that RJ would turn out the better of the 2 options.

Can you get a diamond in the rough at #46 in what is regarded as a weak draft--certainly, but you are making a much more informed chaoice in signing RJ as you at least saw him the yr after he was drafted where he was a Hobey finalist as a junior and you've seen the kid's frame fill out already to an above average NHL body to go along with his skills that not many question.

To me the guy is getting hammered too much over his contract stances when what he is doing is all well within his rights and something each and every one of us would do if we had the option and were unhappy with what we were being offered by the team that originally drafted us.

As for as signing with us he is right for holding out for whatever he thinks he can get.He's sat out to open up this door of potential UFA status and being that he's 2 months shy of picking his team of choice in a open market for his services who the hell could blame him for not signing for anything less than the max to pass up this chance he has positioned himslef for???

'The point is that Burke has seen enough of Umberger as an amatuer to be convinced that the kid is a #16 pick and not a 2nd rounder.' I still do not uderstand what you're getting at here (perhaps it's post-holiday brain dead syndrome, or PHBDS).

He was a #16 pick after one season in college. Burke & Co. probably hadn't seen him play as much by draft time as he has since. And since, he's decided to only throw $650K, or somehwere thereabouts, at him, and not the $1+ million that other #1 draft picks that were drafted at the time he was drafted were getting. And I don't understand the $400K you're speaking about either. It's not an extra $400K to the Rangers, if that's what's being implied, it's an extra $1+ million to the Rangers, that's the investment we're talking about, not an extra $400K. It's just $400K more than what another team was willing to pay (and in percentage terms, it's about 60% more - and on $5 million, that equates to $3 million).

and yeah, he has a 'ready' NHL body - but so does Poti and what do we all say about him?

Truth be told, if the kid was signed for $1 million today, I'm likely not going to ***** and moan. If he's not signed, I also won't ***** and moan. We don't have the information Sather has (and of course, he doesn't use that iformation in a manner in which a Lou Lam would). Perhaps, as L.I. pointed out, Sather & scouts will be looking at Purcha and Marek in coming weeks and will make a play towards bringing one or both of them, and perhaps they feel he's as good as Umberger. And in the end, you can't have 60 guys signed to a bunch of contracts. You're likely not going into camp with 12 center hopefuls. And you're not going into camp with 2-4 guys over 30 and the rest under 25 guys with an average of less than one year of NHL experience.

George & co. rush out and try to sign every international import, frequently by paying them more than others would. However, as the rest of the baseball world stands idly by as they refuse to pay the asking price of these players, it's the Yankees that have the Orlando Hernandez's pitching for them in the World Series.

and look at the number of college-level players that have been signed/acquired in the last two seasons. It's not too shabby a number, and probably ranks up there within the league.

But do others refuse to pay the asking price or are the Yankees just the ones that trump all comers? And they do not get everybody.

But do others refuse to pay the asking price or are the Yankees just the ones that trump all comers? And they do not get everybody.
No, they don't get everybody, but the point is that they do not shy away with spending a few extra dollars on a talented young player. I do not think that anyone can argue that whatever it is that the Yankees are doing, clearly works.

is $1+ million, not exactly chump change. And as I mentioned, you could hurt your bargaining leverage with other RFAs, or soon-to-be-signed young players. Sather definitely has made some UFA signings, but spending money on your RFAs and spending money on UFAs are two different situations. An RFA will have zero leverage when trying to compare his situation to that of Dave Karpa, regardless of how good he is and how bad Krapa is. And any arbitrator will likely not use Karpa as a comp to determine an RFA's value.

Fletch, I think that our argument can be summed up in this. I feel that Umberger has a chance to be a better player than the #46 pick overall. I think that historically statistics back me. I also think that spending the $400k/per year extra for Umberger is a good investment and an example of good risk taking. You can side with Sather in this, this is your opinion and I respect it. You think that either the #46 pick will be either better than Umberger or that it is worth it not to cave in for the extra $400k. I think that not giving him the $$$ is a serious mistake that wil, ievitably come back to bite Jackass in the a$$, much like virtually everything else that he has done here.
I understand that you may have a varying opinion, however there's nothing in the world that is going to convince me that Sather is correct here. To me, this is just another example of horrific mismanagement of assets.

To me, this is just another example of horrific mismanagement of assets.

I don't think we can call it mismangement until we see if the 2nd round pick gained by losing his rights, fails to match or exceed Umberger's contribution as a pro.

It's not so much Sather that we're defending here, as it's the principle that they're trying to build a young core here, and if they immediately give in to Umberger's demands, then each of the other yutes now in the system can also make simliar demands, as some have actually played NHL games.

I don't think we can call it mismangement until we see if the 2nd round pick gained by losing his rights, fails to match or exceed Umberger's contribution as a pro.

So the choice to see if this is a mistake or not is to wait and see if the #46 pick turns out to better than Umberger? I say we use a history as a guide. In most cases, the #16 pick turns out to be better than the # 46. So history tells us the Umberger should be better than whatever the #46 pick is.

I don't think we can call it mismangement until we see if the 2nd round pick gained by losing his rights, fails to match or exceed Umberger's contribution as a pro.

It's not so much Sather that we're defending here, as it's the principle that they're trying to build a young core here, and if they immediately give in to Umberger's demands, then each of the other yutes now in the system can also make simliar demands, as some have actually played NHL games.

Other prospects can't make the same demands b/c RJ was able to place himself in a unique situation that allowed him to gain UFA status for sitting out the yr.

This loophole will certainly be closed come the new CBA so no other prospect will have the leverage that RJ has armed himself with.

It's some what similar to when Lou forgot to qualify both Madden and Rafalski and had to go above the teams salary structure to accomadate the unique situation but no other Dev would've been able to go in and based upon the unique situation that Rafalski and Madden had ask for similar numbers as a result.

To me when looking at our situation and lack of prospects that have top 2 line upside, especially a center which we have none, I'd much rather take my chances on a guy who may be getting an unfair rap due to the contract situation as oppossed to a mid-2nd rounder in what is widely considered a weak draft yr.Sure you can pull a Bergeron out of your rear like Boston did in the 2nd 2 yrs ago but that is a one in a thousand shot and odds I'd pass on in favor of RJ's potential upside and known skills and NHL size at center ice.

So the choice to see if this is a mistake or not is to wait and see if the #46 pick turns out to better than Umberger? I say we use a history as a guide. In most cases, the #16 pick turns out to be better than the # 46. So history tells us the Umberger should be better than whatever the #46 pick is.

No, the label of this being "mismanagement" needs time to prove true or not.

And you'll have to do the research on that draft history. I'd bet there's winners and losers all over the place from picks 15-50. History tells us the draft is a crapshoot, so is any kid trying to make the jump from College to pros (and having taken a year off).


And I agree that Umberger isn't doing anything better or worse than any other player who held out, because he has a right to. What I'm saying is that if he's offered a contract on par with those offered to picks 15 and 17, and does not take it (which, since he would become a UFA, I wouldn't blame him), then I don't see any reason to offer him more, and I'd rather take the 2nd rd pick.

Then see what kind of bidding for his services commences.

So the choice to see if this is a mistake or not is to wait and see if the #46 pick turns out to better than Umberger? I say we use a history as a guide. In most cases, the #16 pick turns out to be better than the # 46. So history tells us the Umberger should be better than whatever the #46 pick is.

It's not like we are trading the 16th pick for a second rounder. This argument means nothing. We are what? 3 years removed from that draft day? You have to look at the player.... who gives a #### when he was picked. There are plenty of players picked that early, whom organizations would glady trade for a 2nd rounder today. Daigle was a 1st overall pick as was Chris Phillips... what does that mean now? Nothing. Does Umberger have talent? Sure, but you have to analyze the player, not where he was picked.

The Rangers have had Umberger around for them for a decent amount of time. If they don't sign him it's for one of two reasons.

1. They'd rather have the pick.

or

2. They are going to try and get the pick, and then sign Umberger.

If they felt he was that great then I'm sure they wouldn't take a risk on losing him. The organization has had their coaches, and I'm sure a number of scouts look at him while he was in practice with the Rangers and Pack. If they don't jump, and sign him then I'm sure there is a legit reason. How can you possibly call it mismanagement at this stage?

I'd bet there's winners and losers all over the place from picks 15-50. History tells us the draft is a crapshoot, so is any kid trying to make the jump from College to pros (and having taken a year off).

What I'm saying is that if he's offered a contract on par with those offered to picks 15 and 17, and does not take it (which, since he would become a UFA, I wouldn't blame him), then I don't see any reason to offer him more, and I'd rather take the 2nd rd pick.

You are 100% correct in saying that there are winners and loosers all over the place. But history also tells us that the #16 pick in a draft will probably have a better career than the #46. And yes, while a team does not have to offer him anymore or less than those taken around him, nor does Umberger have to take anything less than what the CBA says he can take as a rookie. Personally, I would rather have him than #46.

"It's not like we are trading the 16th pick for a second rounder. "

Actually, by not signing him, that's exactly what you are doing.

"1. They'd rather have the pick.

or

2. They are going to try and get the pick, and then sign Umberger."

#2 lands them an investigation by the league and #1 is EXACTLY what I fear is the problem. And that is what I disargee with.

Other prospects can't make the same demands b/c RJ was able to place himself in a unique situation that allowed him to gain UFA status for sitting out the yr.

This loophole will certainly be closed come the new CBA so no other prospect will have the leverage that RJ has armed himself with.

What leverage? I don't understand why everyone thinks teams are gonna be lining up for this kid. Who is gonna give a kid who's never played a profesional game, and hasn't played hockey in a year, a max rookie contract the summer before a new CBA is bargained? Why would they?

Best bet is that he ends up going to pittsburg for cheap after he finds out that no one's going to give a million a year to a 21 yo who's yet to prove anything above the NCAA level, is a year behind in his development, is seen as a bad defensive player, and may have attitude issues.

This drips of irony. How can you say Umberger has no heart when you haven't seen him play? If you want a source to find out about his potential, go to the Prospects Board and ask people who have seen him play. I'm willing to bet most would agree with TB's assessment.

Its one thing to complain about throwing big money and long term contracts at veterans with question marks because of the impending salary cap. Its another thing to refuse to give a top prospect the extra couple $100K it would take to sign him and then use the new CBA as an excuse. We're talking about pocket change here, not millions of dollars.

And when has anybody said that they dont have any respect for Messier? Leaving New York for more money might have left a bad taste in his mouth, but any sensible Ranger fan will forever be grateful to Messier for leading us to the Cup. Doesn't mean Neil Smith should curtail to all of his demands.
i have seen him play. i have watched more college hockey than pro hockey the past 5 years. the fact is umberger is playing a game of chicken with the rangers. why should the rangers blink first? every player and every contract is a different situation. why should sather give in here? there are plenty of people that think umberger is a head case. brian burke being one of them.

#2 lands them an investigation by the league and #1 is EXACTLY what I fear is the problem. And that is what I disargee with.

It may land an investigation, but would it really surprise you?

How can you dissagree so strongly at this point? You couldn't have seen Umberger play lately. I certainly haven't, the guys hasn't played in an organized game for how long?

I don't know what the right decision is on this kid, but you cant make your decision based soley upon where he was drafted.

How can you dissagree so strongly at this point? You couldn't have seen Umberger play lately. I certainly haven't, the guys hasn't played in an organized game for how long?

I don't know what the right decision is on this kid, but you cant make your decision based soley upon where he was drafted.
It's not based upon solely where he was drafted. I have stated some of my reasons earlier. The scouting reports, his size, and yes, where he was drafted make me think that this is a risk worth taking. Instead of taking chances on the next Lindros, Driver, Poti, Ulanov, Ciger, etc..., why not take a chance on a talented kid? As many people are saying that not to take a chance on this kid because of his attitude as there are those saying not to take Schremp becuase of his attitude. Yet the latter still has more than his share of supporters. Umberger obviously has talent. Why not see what he has? The extra $400k per year is a worthwhile investment.

It's not based upon solely where he was drafted. I have stated some of my reasons earlier. The scouting reports, his size, and yes, where he was drafted make me think that this is a risk worth taking. Instead of taking chances on the next Lindros, Driver, Poti, Ulanov, Ciger, etc..., why not take a chance on a talented kid? As many people are saying that not to take a chance on this kid because of his attitude as there are those saying not to take Schremp becuase of his attitude. Yet the latter still has more than his share of supporters. Umberger obviously has talent. Why not see what he has? The extra $400k per year is a worthwhile investment.

Time will tell.... I don't see it being a matter of money (altho Sather can be tight on young guys), but rather a matter of what they see from this guy during the time theyv'e had him around. I wouldn't factor his draft position in the problem because it doesn't matter, if they choose not to sign this guy then thats ok, but they had better be right.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather bring back Ciger ;)

What leverage? I don't understand why everyone thinks teams are gonna be lining up for this kid. Who is gonna give a kid who's never played a profesional game, and hasn't played hockey in a year, a max rookie contract the summer before a new CBA is bargained? Why would they?

Best bet is that he ends up going to pittsburg for cheap after he finds out that no one's going to give a million a year to a 21 yo who's yet to prove anything above the NCAA level, is a year behind in his development, is seen as a bad defensive player, and may have attitude issues.


How can you say what leverage?? :dunno:

When a 21 yr old will be eligible to negotiate with ANY team of his choosing to shop his services that is called leverage.

Regardless of how much he signs for the fact that he is free to do this obviously increases his bargaining position.

How can you say what leverage?? :dunno:

When a 21 yr old will be eligible to negotiate with ANY team of his choosing to shop his services that is called leverage.

Regardless of how much he signs for the fact that he is free to do this obviously increases his bargaining position.

ok, i agree with you there, i was mistaken to say that in this bargaining situation that he does not have leverage. Even so, i still want to know who's going to give him the money that he's seeking?