"I have a feeling that Sather is high on Scott. I don't have much evidence for this aside from the fact that Scott saw early season action last year and is still in New York while players like Moore, Murray and Staals have all been sent down."

scott did not play early last season unless it was during the preseason...he has 5 nhl games in his career and that was in 2001-02

and the reason why moore, murray and stals were sent down is because they need to play, if they aren't getting regular minutes in ny then they need to be getting top line minutes in hartford...if scott sits it isn't a big deal

"scott did not play early last season unless it was during the preseason...he has 5 nhl games in his career and that was in 2001-02"

I stand corrected. Thank you.

"and the reason why moore, murray and stals were sent down is because they need to play, if they aren't getting regular minutes in ny then they need to be getting top line minutes in hartford...if scott sits it isn't a big deal"

Interesting and valid point. Chalk it up to intuition then. Scott spent most of last season in Charlotte I believe, (Heather can correct me if I'm wrong), and did not look particularly impressive in camp. While he had a good game Sunday, I don't see any reason why he would still be in NY given players like Simon, Purinton, Barnaby, (muscle/agitators), LaCouture and Petrovicky (grinding 3rd or 4th line wingers), unless Sather was showcasing him. And I don't believe that to be the case as he seems to be a totally off the radar, fast developing propspect. Even with some time on display, Sather would not get good return on Scott's value.

you are corrected. richard spent most of last season in the stands in hartford.

Scott is nothing more than the token rookie on the roster. Barnaby will no doubt be exposed in the waiver draft as will several other players with high contracts but I have to admit I am laughing at all of this concern over who the Rangers might lose in said waiver draft.

Now I hate to break this to some people but when you are being exposed in the waiver draft by a franchise that has missed the playoffs for 6 straight years what makes anyone think other teams might want a Ranger player?

Even better to ask is how often to players actually change teams in the waiver draft period? Can someone name the last big name player other than Chris Osgood to change teams via the waiver draft?

"Now I hate to break this to some people but when you are being exposed in the waiver draft by a franchise that has missed the playoffs for 6 straight years what makes anyone think other teams might want a Ranger player?"

Ask Boston -- they've been picking up our trash over the past couple of summers and turning it into depth. Grosek and Berard both had pretty good seasons last year in Beantown, even if Berard isn't being resigned this year. And we'll see how Sandy Mac does.

None of those were waiver draft pickups but they illustrate the point that teams do want our depth players and can make good use of them.

As for missing the playoffs, the trouble hasn't been with the talent of this team, it's been with the coaching primarily. Lack of accountability and players not performing to potential are both indirectly related to coaching as well.

"Even better to ask is how often to players actually change teams in the waiver draft period? Can someone name the last big name player other than Chris Osgood to change teams via the waiver draft?"

Your question is more, "When was the last name a big name player changed hands in the draft?" Generally they don't because generally they are protected and it's the bubble players who are left exposed. Of those bubble players, few are superstars (had they shown such potential, they'd have been protected as well) but some are diamonds in the rough. See our pickup of Petrovicky last year for evidence of this.

Uh Rightbug thanks for showing exactly what I said. The point is WHO GETS TAKEN OFF THE RANGER ROSTER VIA THE WAIVER DRAFT?

The answer isn't who the Bruins signed as UFAs as they did with the 3 players you listed. You call them trash but reality says otherwise as only Grosek wasn't a regular as a Ranger.

Like Berard and Sandra or not they did play regular roles with the Rangers. Berard was let go since Slats traded for Poti.

The Waiver draft is the single most overrated NHL event of the year and it is very comical to watch Ranger fans arguing over who will be exposed/protected. All this to watch maybe 5 players mostly very spare parts change hands.

Not to mention since you are wanting to say that lack of talent wasn't the problem with the Rangers but rather coaching was is also incorrect. The Rangers haven't had the right kind of talent there was no legit scoring LWs on the roster last season, there hasn't been a legit #2 defensemen on this team for years (and still there isn't).

My comments were in response to your question, "What makes anyone think other teams might want a Ranger player?" While I realize that your comment was made in the context of the waiver draft, I expanded the context to illustrate that there are teams out there who want players who are on the margins of the Ranger roster -- precisely the sort of players likely to be exposed via the draft. Indeed, my use of the word trash was not intended to reflect my opinion of the players' talent, but rather their status on the margins of the roster.

As for why people make such a fuss and spend time arguing about the waiver draft, well, it's because we're all Ranger fans and everybit of Ranger news, no matter how small is of interest to us. Petrovicky, who was ultimately exposed, is very well liked by many people on this board. And they will be saddened to see him go. Will it have a huge impact on the team's destiny? No, likely not. But it does mean a lot to Petrovicky fans just as the loss of Purinton or Barnaby would make a big difference to me. Despite the fact that these players currently find themselves on the margin of the roster, they still have fans among the Ranger faithful.

"Not to mention since you are wanting to say that lack of talent wasn't the problem with the Rangers but rather coaching was is also incorrect."

Ah -- well the question of "What's been wrong with the Rangers and how do we fix it," is not one that we're going to be able to settle here. It's a debate with many different opinions and I certainly will admit that I could be wrong in my opinion.

If you're not already registered, you should sign up for the boards. This sort of intelligent debate is what the Rangers forum is all about. None of us agree with each other 100% of the time and discussion and debate on Ranger related topics is one of the things that makes being a fan so much fun :)