I think that's very true Pete, they chose Moore over DZ cause they are similar players. I like John Moore, I'm just curious as to what the Rangers management looked at when deciding this. Moore has been just as inconsistent as DZ and really has only been here 1 yr to be evaluated.

For this year it will help balance out the lineup more to AV's liking but I think it was very shortsighted by Sather & others involved to trade a 23 yr old dman still with good offensive upside for a 29 yr old dman that is what he is, nothing special but a solid dman. The Rangers were playing well, no reason to swing that trade with DZ's value so low. I hope I'm wrong and Klein comes in and plays physical and is great for the next 5 yrs for us. I just think they would have been better off holding off on the trade while DZ rebuilt some value and got a younger guy with some upside instead.
- pcjr307

That was a risk the Rangers were clearly not willing to take. They gave him plenty of chances this year and had arrived at the conclusion that he wasn't going to get markedly better so instead of seeing his trade value fall further they made the move today to improve the team now. Obviously we'll never know if MDZ would have turned it around here or not.

I just wish MSG carried the Wolfpack, or at the least replays of their games. This way we can see exactly how some of the prospects are developing. It would be better than half the sh1t they put on the 4 different channels of MSG at the least.

This is where the DZ criticism was stupid. If we apply that logic to McI cause he isn't here playing, why can't we apply that to 23 year old DZ?
- mrhattrick27

The problem with MDZ is that the Rangers simply did not believe he would reach his potential here under AV. His play had regressed and that was a trend they did not think was going to reverse. They made the move to acquire a safer player who will likely improve the team's overall defensive play and sacrificed upside to do it. The fact they will also save substantially given MDZ'a pending RFA and arbitration rights also makes the move more justifiable IMO.

I see two of the three current RH shots on this team as UFA's after the season. Free agency as we all know can be unpredictable and it may not matter how much we may want to re-sign a player, if another team comes knocking with a big offer we could lose one or both of Girardi and Stralman. In that case an opening is there for McI.

Obviously McI is not ready this year. He still has some fine tuning he needs to do on his game. Granted, at best I see him as no better than a 2nd pair D who can intimidate. But when you look at the overall failure rate of even players taken 10th I'd be okay with that development.

It's easy to sit here after the fact and say we would have been better off taking so and so instead of this guy but there is a reason the Rangers made this decision. Maybe they didn't like something about Fowler. Maybe it turns out to be a mistake. Every team makes mistakes. But let's not write the kid off yet. He's still just 21, 22. He has time.
- gkmkiller

A couple of things, Glen.

First, I think this is one of the rare instances where the Rangers decision to take McIlrath over Fowler wasn't criticized in hindsight, but rather at the time the pick was made. Fowler was, in almost every single combined prospect ranking, the number #3 or #4 player in the draft. He played a ton of hockey as a junior and was a hell of alot more NHL ready than McIlrath. That pick was universally panned by members of this board, who are admittedly not hockey scouts, but in this instance we were right.

Second, I am not necessarily giving up on McIlrath, but at the same time, I also haven't seen anything yet that encourages me. By this point, if a player is close to becoming a regular NHL defensemen, there is usually significant buzz about how that player is playing in the "A". You hear much about that with McIlrath?

Third, he may still have a little time, but I think that time is running out. It does admittedly take longer for defensemen to develop, but usually you see something by this point.

Let's wait and see, but I think this summer will be extraordinarily revealing for what the organization thinks about him.

And lastly, I realize that organizations make mistakes in the draft. They all do. This one just bugs me, because they got lucky that a top end player fell to them, and they swung and missed on that opportunity.

The problem with MDZ is that the Rangers simply did not believe he would reach his potential here under AV. His play had regressed and that was a trend they did not think was going to reverse. They made the move to acquire a safer player who will likely improve the team's overall defensive play and sacrificed upside to do it. The fact they will also save substantially given MDZ'a pending RFA and arbitration rights also makes the move more justifiable IMO.
- gkmkiller

Mad libs style replace MDZ with McI and that's how I feel. McI isn't getting better in the 3-4 years sicne we drafted him. Huge red flag for me. I would trade him now for almost anything. 3rd round pick maybe?? I just am chalking him up as a bust. If I'm wrong I will be pleasantly surprised.

I understand if a 21 year old is developing well and struggles in his NHL appearances, but as far as I can tell he isn't developing well which to me is the difference.

A couple of things, Glen.

First, I think this is one of the rare instances where the Rangers decision to take McIlrath over Fowler wasn't criticized in hindsight, but rather at the time the pick was made. Fowler was, in almost every single combined prospect ranking, the number #3 or #4 player in the draft. He played a ton of hockey as a junior and was a hell of alot more NHL ready than McIlrath. That pick was universally panned by members of this board, who are admittedly not hockey scouts, but in this instance we were right.

Second, I am not necessarily giving up on McIlrath, but at the same time, I also haven't seen anything yet that encourages me. By this point, if a player is close to becoming a regular NHL defensemen, there is usually significant buzz about how that player is playing in the "A". You hear much about that with McIlrath?

Third, he may still have a little time, but I think that time is running out. It does admittedly take longer for defensemen to develop, but usually you see something by this point.

Let's wait and see, but I think this summer will be extraordinarily revealing for what the organization thinks about him.

And lastly, I realize that organizations make mistakes in the draft. They all do. This one just bugs me, because they got lucky that a top end player fell to them, and they swung and missed on that opportunity.
- Pete V

It really is a theme with Rangers. Recently it's gotten better, but still. The always do something to make say why?

A couple of things, Glen.

First, I think this is one of the rare instances where the Rangers decision to take McIlrath over Fowler wasn't criticized in hindsight, but rather at the time the pick was made. Fowler was, in almost every single combined prospect ranking, the number #3 or #4 player in the draft. He played a ton of hockey as a junior and was a hell of alot more NHL ready than McIlrath. That pick was universally panned by members of this board, who are admittedly not hockey scouts, but in this instance we were right.

Second, I am not necessarily giving up on McIlrath, but at the same time, I also haven't seen anything yet that encourages me. By this point, if a player is close to becoming a regular NHL defensemen, there is usually significant buzz about how that player is playing in the "A". You hear much about that with McIlrath?

Third, he may still have a little time, but I think that time is running out. It does admittedly take longer for defensemen to develop, but usually you see something by this point.

Let's wait and see, but I think this summer will be extraordinarily revealing for what the organization thinks about him.

And lastly, I realize that organizations make mistakes in the draft. They all do. This one just bugs me, because they got lucky that a top end player fell to them, and they swung and missed on that opportunity.
- Pete V

EXACTLY. Would I be pissed if we took Fowler and he didn't pan out? No, he was the highest rated player, and really skilled in junior and frankly the right pick. IF you are going to go that off the board you better be right about it.

And to be honest, that year the Rangers were in a shootout to decide if they made the playoffs. If they lost they'd get the #10 pick, win and they were an 8 seed. I wanted them to lose. I thought this organization getting a top 10 pick would be a building block worth sacrificing sneaking into the playoffs for as I thought we weren't that far off and wouldn't get a chance to pick that high again. And we blew it by being too cute. Honestly the more I think about it, the more pissed I am.

A couple of things, Glen.

First, I think this is one of the rare instances where the Rangers decision to take McIlrath over Fowler wasn't criticized in hindsight, but rather at the time the pick was made. Fowler was, in almost every single combined prospect ranking, the number #3 or #4 player in the draft. He played a ton of hockey as a junior and was a hell of alot more NHL ready than McIlrath. That pick was universally panned by members of this board, who are admittedly not hockey scouts, but in this instance we were right.

Second, I am not necessarily giving up on McIlrath, but at the same time, I also haven't seen anything yet that encourages me. By this point, if a player is close to becoming a regular NHL defensemen, there is usually significant buzz about how that player is playing in the "A". You hear much about that with McIlrath?

Third, he may still have a little time, but I think that time is running out. It does admittedly take longer for defensemen to develop, but usually you see something by this point.

Let's wait and see, but I think this summer will be extraordinarily revealing for what the organization thinks about him.

And lastly, I realize that organizations make mistakes in the draft. They all do. This one just bugs me, because they got lucky that a top end player fell to them, and they swung and missed on that opportunity.
- Pete V

I understand but to be honest, before we start anointing Fowler the next great defenseman, realize prior to this year he was the same player as MDZ for all intents and purposes. Through 195 games prior to this season Fowler was a -57. That's for a team with essentially an even goal differential overall during his first three seasons.

Fowler had a nice rookie season in terms of point scoring 40 but was also a -25. He regressed his sophomore campaign to 29 points and a -28 rating. Last season he had 11 points in 37 games. This year he has been great but his production has resembled that of Del Zotto's in many ways. They are both offense-first blue-liners who struggle at times in the defensive zone.

All I am saying is this: Maybe the Rangers had concerns on Fowler. Maybe they saw his flaws and didn't want another offense-first defender with weaknesses in his own end. Quite a few teams bypassed him so the Rangers were far from the only team that made that decision.

In cases like this I usually defer to the experts. And by experts I mean Gordie Clark et al. They saw something they really liked in McIlrath and evidently something they didn't like about Fowler. They've proven to be right more often than wrong on these calls so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I understand but to be honest, before we start anointing Fowler the next great defenseman, realize prior to this year he was the same player as MDZ for all intents and purposes. Through 195 games prior to this season Fowler was a -57. That's for a team with essentially an even goal differential overall during his first three seasons.

Fowler had a nice rookie season in terms of point scoring 40 but was also a -25. He regressed his sophomore campaign to 29 points and a -28 rating. Last season he had 11 points in 37 games. This year he has been great but his production has resembled that of Del Zotto's in many ways. They are both offense-first blue-liners who struggle at times in the defensive zone.

All I am saying is this: Maybe the Rangers had concerns on Fowler. Maybe they saw his flaws and didn't want another offense-first defender with weaknesses in his own end. Quite a few teams bypassed him so the Rangers were far from the only team that made that decision.

In cases like this I usually defer to the experts. And by experts I mean Gordie Clark et al. They saw something they really liked in McIlrath and evidently something they didn't like about Fowler. They've proven to be right more often than wrong on these calls so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
- gkmkiller

I'm quite certain the Rangers felt they had a bonfire offensive damn in MDZ at the time of the draft, and that's most likely why they passed on Fowler. Couple that with the McLIrath's size and toughness, they made a judgement call. For me' 1st rounders should always be about talent, not character guys.

I understand but to be honest, before we start anointing Fowler the next great defenseman, realize prior to this year he was the same player as MDZ for all intents and purposes. Through 195 games prior to this season Fowler was a -57. That's for a team with essentially an even goal differential overall during his first three seasons.

Fowler had a nice rookie season in terms of point scoring 40 but was also a -25. He regressed his sophomore campaign to 29 points and a -28 rating. Last season he had 11 points in 37 games. This year he has been great but his production has resembled that of Del Zotto's in many ways. They are both offense-first blue-liners who struggle at times in the defensive zone.

All I am saying is this: Maybe the Rangers had concerns on Fowler. Maybe they saw his flaws and didn't want another offense-first defender with weaknesses in his own end. Quite a few teams bypassed him so the Rangers were far from the only team that made that decision.

In cases like this I usually defer to the experts. And by experts I mean Gordie Clark et al. They saw something they really liked in McIlrath and evidently something they didn't like about Fowler. They've proven to be right more often than wrong on these calls so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
- gkmkiller

I was actually really surprised they passed over Fowler. I remember saying to my dad, here we go again, this kid fell right in their laps and they blew it as usual with the draft.

I had high hopes for McIlrath, that he'd be that crease clearing presence the Rangers never have, someone the other team would fear. It's just disappointing to see his progress so far, injuries certainly haven't helped him but I have to think next year is make or break for him in terms of making the club.

Things are getting magnified now that DZ has been traded, Fowler would look good in his spot right now instead of McIlrath who keeps getting hurt.

That was a risk the Rangers were clearly not willing to take. They gave him plenty of chances this year and had arrived at the conclusion that he wasn't going to get markedly better so instead of seeing his trade value fall further they made the move today to improve the team now. Obviously we'll never know if MDZ would have turned it around here or not.
- gkmkiller

Yea, they didn't want to take the chance of him playing worse I guess and have to pay him as RFA, when he wasn't clicking with AV. Obviously, I never hope the Rangers wind up on the wrong side of a trade. I just can't see them winning this one but I do hope I'm wrong.

Yea, they didn't want to take the chance of him playing worse I guess and have to pay him as RFA, when he wasn't clicking with AV. Obviously, I never hope the Rangers wind up on the wrong side of a trade. I just can't see them winning this one but I do hope I'm wrong.
- pcjr307

I'm starting to think this played a bigger role than we thought. I wouldn't be surprised to see Brassard moved for a similar reason as his QO is pretty steep.

I'm starting to think this played a bigger role than we thought. I wouldn't be surprised to see Brassard moved for a similar reason as his QO is pretty steep.
- mrhattrick27

Rangers have to qualify him at 4 million. I don't see how they can do that, while re-signing both Girardi and Callahan, qualifying Zuccs and getting Kreider a new contract.

Tarasenko damn it!!

I wanted the Rangers to draft him. I was on NHL shop sitting and waiting to order my Tarasenko jersey when the #10 pick came.

McIlrath, smh.

Rangers have to qualify him at 4 million. I don't see how they can do that, while re-signing both Girardi and Callahan, qualifying Zuccs and getting Kreider a new contract.
- tomburton99

I think Zucc's is gonna get more than just a qualifying offer. I wouldnt be surprised if Zucc's got a nice hefty raise to the 3m AAV area.

I'm starting to think this played a bigger role than we thought. I wouldn't be surprised to see Brassard moved for a similar reason as his QO is pretty steep.
- mrhattrick27

If that's the case and the Rangers didn't wanna pay him that & they wanna get out of that 4 mil QO id like to use him to see about acquiring Glencross from CGY. He adds some grit, scoring and size which is something the team could still use. Maybe they could send him, a pick and a prospect. Glencross is on a team friendly deal so the Rangers would save some $ when they could use all the cap space they can get. Doubtful it happens, Brassard is playing well lately, but just thinking out loud if it ever came to that point.

If that's the case and the Rangers didn't wanna pay him that & they wanna get out of that 4 mil QO id like to use him to see about acquiring Glencross from CGY. He adds some grit, scoring and size which is something the team could still use. Maybe they could send him, a pick and a prospect. Glencross is on a team friendly deal so the Rangers would save some $ when they could use all the cap space they can get. Doubtful it happens, Brassard is playing well lately, but just thinking out loud if it ever came to that point.
- pcjr307

Heard that he, Glencross is unwilling to waive his NMC.

Heard that he, Glencross is unwilling to waive his NMC.
- tomburton99

Oh man, too bad. I think he'd fit in real well here.

Oh man, too bad. I think he'd fit in real well here.
- pcjr307

Just hearsay, not from a reputable hockey person.

Just hearsay, not from a reputable hockey person.
- tomburton99

I would wonder about that. Nothing against Calgary, but I don't think they are going to get a cup any time soon, and he isn't a spring chicken. I would think he would waive it if he thought he was going to a favorite. But who knows.

I think Zucc's is gonna get more than just a qualifying offer. I wouldnt be surprised if Zucc's got a nice hefty raise to the 3m AAV area.
- aecliptic

Than that basically means that Miller and one of Fast, Lindberg or another kid need to make the team next year. Especially if Richards is still on the roster.

I would wonder about that. Nothing against Calgary, but I don't think they are going to get a cup any time soon, and he isn't a spring chicken. I would think he would waive it if he thought he was going to a favorite. But who knows.
- mdw7413

Everybody though the Jackets would move Nash at the deadline in 2012. Obviously that never happened. Of course circumstances were different. Still makes you think though.

gameday blog up