Obviously the Rangers have been involved in a ton of trade rumors lately, especially on this site. The one name that gets thrown around a lot that stands out is forward Brandon Dubinsky. Just a year ago he was a young scorer who appeared to be a cornerstone for the Blueshirts moving forward, yet trading him makes sense for a couple of major reasons.

He has a ton to offer a team; he is only 25, and in his first four full seasons he racked up 71 goals and 179 points. Dubinsky has also demonstrated solid two-way ability, and excels at penalty killing. However, this year the offense is way down. With just 6 goals at the 50 game mark, Dubi has found himself on the 3rd line. It is very likely that many teams out there believe that with the right line mates and ice time, he can be back to his 25+ goals a year ways.

The other major reason is money. The Rangers are rumored to want another big name player, whether it be Rick Nash at the deadline or Parise next summer. With three players already inked to monster contracts, some things would have to be moved around to accommodate another 6-7 million a year cap hit. Dubinsky is a cap hit of over 4 million, and all things considered that is simply too much for his output. As harsh as it may sound, Sather knows he can get a 10-goal scorer for about 3 million less. Were the Rangers to make a move for a big player, trading Dubi would likely cover over half of the cap hit.

Personally I'm torn. On one hand it would be kind of sad to see him go. It reminds me of that episode in every TV show where a team works hard and makes it to the big game, only to bring in some superstar who takes someone's place. But on the other hand I realize this is a business, and hometown loyalty goes out the window for money and wins (thank you Jose Reyes). So how would you guys feel about this?

(PS: This was my first fan post so constructive criticism is definitely welcomed)

(PPS: Please don't turn this into another Rick Nash trade thread haha)

Take this report from ESPN Insider for what it's worth but it does bring up an interesting question. How much is too much for a 27 year old superstar in his prime?

A few days ago, the Columbus Dispatch's Shawn Mitchell left open the possibility that some Columbus Blue Jackets veterans, including Rick Nash, could still be traded at the deadline. But Nash -- who has a no-movement clause -- is apparently staying put.TrueHockey.com's Andy Strickland talked with "sources close to the player" who continue to tell him that Nash isn't leaving Columbus, which indicates that Nash isn't looking to waive his no-movement clause to start over in another city.

However, the Ottawa Sun's Bruce Garrioch is still hearing some buzz about Nash on the rumor mill. Apparently the New York Rangers are interested in Nash, and he's hearing that the Jackets would want Brandon Dubinsky, Chris Kreider and a No. 1 pick in return. It still doesn't seem like enough -- and it still sounds unlikely -- but perhaps that's why Jackets GM Scott Howson was at the Rangers game last night.

At first glance I thought this "potential" deal sounded like waaaay too much contrary to the reports take that it was the exact opposite. After thinking about it, It only costs the Rangers one player from the current roster albeit an underachieving one in Dubinsky. I love Dubinsky and think his style of play epitomizes the Rangers persona so I'd be leery of messing with that. However, they do need a secondary scorer and Nash is definitely that and could fit in real nicely with Richards. I'd hate to lose Kreider but think in the interest of winning a cup, this deal makes sense assuming Nash can play Torts' style. The fact that Nash is 27 makes it a lot easier to swallow too. Your thoughts?

Greetings & Brian Leetch's to one & all,

As a devout NYR fan, I can honestly say I have never been as excited about the defense corps as I am at this point in the season. Through smart drafting & sorcerer-type trades, the Rangers have managed to accumulate the best young defense in the entire National Hockey League.

But who's the best one? Girardi? Del Zotto? McDonagh? Staal? Stephane Quintal?

The answer is a complicated one to be sure. But if you could only keep one who would it be? And if you had to trade one, who?

If I was the one getting paid to feather my succulent golden-grey locks & suck on unlit cuban's all day, I think I would have the answer on both fronts.

For me, Dan Girardi is currently their best d-man & the 2nd best player on the team, next to the King (honorable Cally mention). He is an oak tree of imperviousness that seems to make every right decision while logging a little less ice time than the 3 polar bears that remain in the north pole. He is no doubt having a Norris trophy type season, leading by example with every stride, but he's limited offensively.

Michael Del Zotto is arguably having a better season than Girardi. His turnaround from AHL oblivion has been remarkable given the Boris Mironov type year he had in 2010/11. His transformation has been two fold, he's improved dramatically defensively, but his offensive capabilities have taken longer to come back around from what we saw in his rookie campaign. If he can ever learn to hit the net he could be knocking on Norris' door sooner than later.

Marc Staal was the one defenseman in NY Ranger land for the last couple of years that gave you true hope. When you think of the Rangers starting to take the right path through drafting & getting away from the Alaxander Daigle signings, you think of Marc Staal. Like Girardi, he is as solid as they come defensively, his stick work is second to none. But like #5 his offense is as stagnant as a slow dance on the first night at virgin camp. Throw in the concussion soap opera that was the fall & you're really left wondering if the real Staal we know & love will ever please stand up, please stand up. He's getting there, he's just not there yet.

Which leaves the man that, if I had to choose, would be the one d-man I would protect more than any other, Ryan McDonagh. At 22 years old, he is playing a game far beyond his years. He seems to be ingesting the best attributes of the other 3 guys & voltron-ing them into his own game. The offensive side is not sparkling yet, but you can hear it bubbling just underneath the surface. Girardi will be nominated for the Norris but won't win it. McDonagh, I believe, will have his name on the trophy before his career is done.

So who of the other 3 would I trade? if I absolutely had to? (cause I would never, EVER want to)

For me, it would have to be Marc Staal. If for no other reason than the family name would garner more in return at this point.

Thankfully, none of them are going anywhere. I for one, couldn't be more excited to see these four young Rangers continue to grow into one of the best defense units this franchise has ever known. The four horsemen. I've posted a poll with this to see what the rest of you out there in Ranger land think.

This is my 2nd entry on BSB & it's been great fun so far. Thanks to anyone who's commented, no matter what your opinion. And to anyone who has taken the time to scroll this far down, thanks for reading!

Big Weekend Starts Today in Philth-adelphia!! Let's Go Rangers!

Mike On The Mic

Twitter: @CheddarVeddar

ESPN's Pierre Lebrun has noted:

ESPN Insider Pierre LeBrun posted this update.

Ray Whitney is on the radar of a few contenders and with good reason. The Wizard is amazingly leading the Phoenix Coyotes in scoring at 39 years old.

An unrestricted free agent July 1, he could be on the move if the Coyotes fall out of the playoff race over the next two weeks.

Sources have told ESPN.com that Boston, San Jose and the New York Rangers covet the slick playmaker.

The tricky part is that Whitney has a no-move clause that calls for him to list eight teams to which he’d be willing to be traded. A source told ESPN.com on Thursday that that conversation had yet to happen, which makes sense since the Coyotes remain very much in the playoff race at this point.

Still, a name worth keeping an eye on.

Lets Take a look at a few things here and as to why Ray would be a nice fit at the deadline:

Whitney currently has 16 goals and 33 assists for a total of 49 points. If he were a Ranger, he would be leading the team in points. He could easily hit 70 points or more at his age. He is pushing 40 years old and has been around the block but he would bring tons of playoff experience. Whitney played a key role during the Hurricanes cup run in 2006. He would add much needed balance to our lines and would most likely give Richards the spark he needs. He would also bring some nice offensive skill to the powerplay.

The benefit here is that we would not need to break the bank for Whitney and hold on to all of our key prospects. As we all know the rangers have a solid rep with Phoenix with Don Maloney as GM. Sather and Maloneys relationship probably give us the edge over Sharks and Bruins if we wanted Whitneys services.

I just think Whitney would make the most sense at teh deadline to give us a nice jolt going forward into the playoffs?

What do you guys think?

Carter is definitely on the block and can be had for cheap at the moment. While I don't like him off the ice and think he's a cancer, on the ice he's a good sniper. Torts could probably straighten him out. He could be a good winger that plays well with Richards. Anyway, people point to his cap hit and long contract as reasons to stay away but here's something interesting I thought of.

The Rangers get Carter for very little and then if he succeeds that's great and if he doesn't we can send him to Hartford and let him rot out the rest of his long contract. I don't know how long he'd want to ride the bus down there and eventually he'd want out of his contract.

I don't exactly know if the Rangers can do that, but i'm not finding any reason why they couldn't.

Thoughts?

From TSN, It is a one year extension for 2.5 million. Is it safe to assume that this means he is off the trading block or is he still a viable option for down the stretch. I think a pure rental such as Smyth or Selanne will be the best option to get over the hump without giving up too much.

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=387218

This has been something I've been thinking about for a while now. After what we saw last night, with the no goal call I think I've seen enough and I would expect most fans to feel the same way. Officials have a very tough job, Hockey is the fastest team sports game out there, where at times calls are not black and white. There is a level of judgement that comes into play with the officiating. There are times when that judgment or lack thereof, has a direct impact on the outcome of the game, such as the disallowed goal last night, or if things went differently during the Winter classic, etc.
I believe all questionable calls that involve a goal should be reviewed, much like how goals are reviewed to make sure the puck crosses the line and so on. I also believe the league should allow 1 challenge call the coach can use per game. Whether the challenge goes up to Toronto for review or if the officials go and take a look at the replays themselves, a more likely scenario much like what is done in football.

There needs to be a way to argue a call that is in the wrong and costs you deserved points.

What do you all think

Last night we saw yet another call go against the Rangers. It seems to happen on a nightly basis. As a Rangers fan I’ve learned to live with it. Clarkson's Clip of Marc Staal. A couple Hooks that weren't called. The BS of the disallowed goal. But when I read something like this half-baked excuse for an article I can’t take it anymore. There is the guise of impartiality, which this article attempts, and their's the truth. So here’s the truth of what we saw...

Continue reading this post »

So i've made it a personal mission in life to become the NHLOA's worst enemy. Last year I started emailed the OA after a game (which i can't remember) about a horrible call against the Rangers that ended up being the "straw that broke the camels back" and lost the game for the Rangers. The second time was for some insane calls against Avery (yes for once he didn't deserve them), thankfully they still won but just barely. I had only written them twice up until the end of the season. In the playoffs I wasn't as vocal and never emailed them. Although i'm sure i could have if i really felt up to it.

As of this year I am up to 9 emails. I've kept copier of each one just in-case i would ever need to look back on them. The 2 most recent ones off the top of my head are the Winter Classic and tonights game. They did their best to call the game for Philly in the WC. Point in case the double call that ended up with Cally going to the box at the end. Now we did win that game but either way the officiating was still "disgusting". Tonight's call ,however, coast the Rangers at the very least a point in the standings.

Most can argue that the Rangers didn't exactly play up to par tonight, especially during the 1st period. As the game progressed the team played better. During the 3rd is when there looked to be light at the end of the tunnel. Even the last PP seemed to be working a bit we just didn't score (as always). Then with just over 5 seconds left we break through (until the refs said fuck you). Gaborik is pushed into fatso from behind by Volchenkov. There are 2 linesmen and 2 refs on the ice. Now from pretty much any angle you wish to see, you can clearly tell that Gaborik was trying to stop due to the amount of snow coming from his skates. Refs wave the goal off and call goaltender interference. Moot point with only 5 seconds and the game already won by the refs.

I know this upset just about every Ranger fan watching the game and any who missed it will see during the highlights. I seriously hope (and we know this may never happen) that during the CBA talks team are allowed at least one challenge a game. This would have change the out-come of not only our game, but the LA game from last week as well. With refs calls getting more and more absurd, it might force refs to really think about calls/non-calls. Just want your feelings on everything.

Hey guys, whats up? I've been on this site for about a year and glance at it at least once a day, but I do not post that often so try to be gentle on me. So I just finished watching that horrible ending to a game against the devils. In my personal opinion the ref should have waived off the goal, but not call the penalty in order to make the play reviewable. That was a joke of a call, but I'm on my couch, not on the ice. Join me after the jump for the reason why I'm posting

Continue reading this post »