2024 Off-season Thread: Burn in Effigy

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

but we do know what was offered and what was taken.  Duclair was traded for a prospect and a 3rd round pick.  Surely SJ would've taken a first rounder instead if Drury offered. 

 

It doesnt matter how many points Duclair scored in TB, he was still a better offensive option than Roslovic

Well the stats say he was pretty much the same player as Roslovic last season, but I know you don't like stats. 

 

If the argument is that Duclair is automatically better than Roslovic, then that's just a non-starter for me because the numbers don't actually bear that out.

 

San Jose also retained nothing on that contract, and if we made that deal we wouldn't have been able to add anyone else. The Rangers needed to add two players, so they needed retention. 

 

There's a lot that goes into these things. It's not so simple and cut and dry as we want to make it out three months later. 

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I don't believe for one second that Wennberg and Roslovic were the best and only options available.

Well firstly that's not what I said. That could be why we're having a disconnect, because you're having the argument that you want to have and not actually reading what I'm saying. 

 

What I'm saying is there Is a world of possibility out there aside from what you've established to be the only two paths.

• Drury didn't go all in because he didn't believe in the team 
• Drury is a bad GM with no balls and was too cheap to go and get the team what it needed at the deadline 

Both of those reinforce your view that this is a poorly run organization and a bad team. 

 

You say "Drury swung and missed" trying to throw shade, meanwhile great hitters swing and miss all the time. There's a pitcher out there too. There's another GM out there trying to get the best deal for their club. They're not just going to take whatever is offered, if they think a different team offered something better.

 

My argument is that a lot of things could have happened to influence who the Rangers wound up with and why that are outside those two bullets. 

 

If you're not open to those possibilities, if you think those two bullets are the only two realities, then I don't know what to tell you. 

 

I'm not the one who's bent out of shape, I'm not the one who's saying you're "yapping". I'm simply saying that it takes two GMs to make a deal and sometimes you don't get the players you want, so you go get the players that are there for you and try not to give too much for them.

 

That doesn't mean he thought the team wasn't worth adding to, and it doesn't mean that he's a horrible GM for a poorly run organization. 

 

I can't believe these are things that need to be said. 

Edited June 12 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

Well firstly that's not what I said. That could be why we're having a disconnect, because you're having the argument that you want to have and not actually reading what I'm saying. 

 

What I'm saying is there Is a world of possibility out there aside from what you've established to be the only two paths.

• Drury didn't go all in because he didn't believe in the team 
• Drury is a bad GM with no balls and was too cheap to go and get the team what it needed at the deadline 

Both of those reinforce your view that this is a poorly run organization and a bad team. 

 

You say "Drury swung and missed" trying to throw shade, meanwhile great hitters swing and miss all the time. There's a pitcher out there too. There's another GM out there trying to get the best deal for their club. They're not just going to take whatever is offered, if they think a different team offered something better.

 

My argument is that a lot of things could have happened to influence who the Rangers wound up with and why that are outside those two bullets. 

 

If you're not open to those possibilities, if you think those two bullets are the only two realities, then I don't know what to tell you. 

 

I'm not the one who's bent out of shape, I'm not the one who's saying you're "yapping". I'm simply saying that it takes two GMs to make a deal and sometimes you don't get the players you want, so you go get the players that are there for you and try not to give too much for them.

 

That doesn't mean he thought the team wasn't worth adding to, and it doesn't mean that he's a horrible GM for a poorly run organization. 

 

I can't believe these are things that need to be said. 

 

You really just need to re-read from earlier today instead of poorly summarizing the perceived argument with a lot of extra adjectives and strawmen thrown in.

 

We all see the prices that were paid. Drury either got boxed out and left in the dark by GMs across the league, in a way where he did not have a chance to counter or beat other offers, or simply chose not to pay more for a player than the other interested GMs and settled for what he did. If you can't agree with that, there's nowhere else to go.

 

I'm not even throwing Drury under the bus so this isn't even a negative take lol. This was a career year from Panarin, and a career year from Trocheck. The team had no top line right wing and no 3rd line center. He spent a 2nd and a 4th. Weak sauce my dude. Very weak. But again, I appreciated not moving all-in and said so at the deadline. It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. It's what happened, and actions speak louder than words.

 

 

[Flynn]

Its not even technically the offseason yet.. Its going to be a long one!

 

Edited June 12 by Flynn

[Br4d]

4 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Hindsight doesn't apply here.

 

Your other point comes into play if the offers are the same. Even if it did here, Drury clearly had the assets to beat a 1st rounder that might have been perceived as slightly more valuable, if he wanted to.

 

I don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill today.

 

It's a hill.  Pete likes hills. 

[Pete]

56 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

You really just need to re-read from earlier today instead of poorly summarizing the perceived argument with a lot of extra adjectives and strawmen thrown in.

 

We all see the prices that were paid. Drury either got boxed out and left in the dark by GMs across the league, in a way where he did not have a chance to counter or beat other offers, or simply chose not to pay more for a player than the other interested GMs and settled for what he did. If you can't agree with that, there's nowhere else to go.

 

For me, it's the way you throw around these terms that that paint him to be an idiot like "boxed out, in the dark" that really solidify My point that you will skew any conversation towards "this team sucks and it's run by idiots", and it's really hard to take the conversation seriously when it's all meant to serve a narrative. 

 

Quote

I'm not even throwing Drury under the bus so this isn't even a negative take lol. This was a career year from Panarin, and a career year from Trocheck. The team had no top line right wing and no 3rd line center. He spent a 2nd and a 4th. Weak sauce my dude. Very weak. But again, I appreciated not moving all-in and said so at the deadline.

So after throwing him under the bus you claim to not throw him under the bus. Do you see why it's hard to take it seriously? You can't punch someone in the face and then claim to be taking it easy on them because you also didn't kick them in the balls. Your opinion is clear regardless of what your words are. 

 

Quote

It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.

"My interpretation is the only ones that exists." This is what I've been saying the whole time. If a scenario is introduced that's outside what you've decided must be true, that scenario must be impossible... Simply because you can't believe that it could happen.

 

Quote

It's what happened, and actions speak louder than words.

Your interpretation of those actions might be different than others, or the scenarios behind those actions might be ones you refuse to consider. 

[Pete]

55 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

It's a hill.  Pete likes hills. 

I do. And I don't care what the face looks like.

[BrooksBurner]

22 minutes ago, Pete said:

For me, it's the way you throw around these terms that that paint him to be an idiot like "boxed out, in the dark" that really solidify My point that you will skew any conversation towards "this team sucks and it's run by idiots", and it's really hard to take the conversation seriously when it's all meant to serve a narrative. 

 

So after throwing him under the bus you claim to not throw him under the bus. Do you see why it's hard to take it seriously? You can't punch someone in the face and then claim to be taking it easy on them because you also didn't kick them in the balls. Your opinion is clear regardless of what your words are. 

None of this makes sense if you read anything I wrote today.

 

I’ve already said I thought Drury actively made a good decision to limit spending at the deadline. I don’t think he is just cheap to be cheap nor do I think he got boxed out. But yeah I think it’d have to be one or the other if he had all-in Cup aspirations approaching the deadline. I don’t think he did, or he’d have spent more than a 2nd and 4th. You seem to think he did and every single better player just didn’t work out in trade talks. There’s just no way that happened based on the prices we saw, but you’re welcome to believe it so it fits your narrative.

[siddious]

4 hours ago, Flynn said:

The alternative discussion is how often deadline deals actually help you win a cup. I think its far less frequent than folklore would have you believe. 

15/16 teams don’t win the cup so I think that argument can be a little skewed. 

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

None of this makes sense if you read anything I wrote today.

 

I’ve already said I thought Drury actively made a good decision to limit spending at the deadline. I don’t think he is just cheap to be cheap nor do I think he got boxed out. But yeah I think it’d have to be one or the other if he had all-in Cup aspirations approaching the deadline.

All I'm saying is that there are possibilities that exist beyond "one or the other".

Quote

I don’t think he did, or he’d have spent more than a 2nd and 4th.

Maybe he tried. They don't have 3rds, or 2nds for that matter. Maybe what was out there wasn't worth a first or a team wanted a different first. The Ranger's 1st easily could have been 32, I don't blame a team if they wanted a 20 instead because by all accounts this draft has a steep drop off. All I'm saying is, that a very real possibility.

Quote

You seem to think he did and every single better player just didn’t work out in trade talks. There’s just no way that happened based on the prices we saw.

That's not what I said. Because you think a player is better doesn't make the player better. I see Duclair and Roslovic thrown out there, they had similar stats. Maybe the way Drury evaluates talent is different than you? And maybe he was right because Duclair sucked in the playoffs and so did Henrique, so why give a first for that guy? Sounds like he knew at the time Henrique wasn't the guy, so he got the off price version for half off, or maybe Verbeek thought EDMs 1st would be better than NYR.

 

It's not "one or the other". Possibilities outside that exist.

[Rangers1994]

20 hours ago, Albatrosss said:

Honestly i’d rather say “bye” to shesty. We’ve already tried this scenario with Henrik, where a goalie gets overpaid and it didnt really work. I would be perfectly happy with a lesser goalie making around $5M and a better product in front of him. 

 

Whom would you get instead for what assets?

[Flynn]

1 hour ago, siddious said:

15/16 teams don’t win the cup so I think that argument can be a little skewed. 

Look at the last 25 deadlines and tell me who used the deadline to move from “solid contender” to Cup Winner. It’s not a layup that a GM nails every year. 
 

The deadline is looked at with this mythical aura- when in reality it either 1) helps sure up a hole or 2 down lineup for an already great team. 2) results in an over pay for a guy(s) that don’t get you over the hump. 

 

I don't think a Jake Guentzel type player was the magic pill to get this team over the hump. The reality is that “magic pill” guy doesn’t happen very often. Butch Gorings don’t grown on trees. We can shit on Drury for the deadline all day long, but the issue was the 16+ skaters that weren’t added to the lineup weren’t good enough- it wasn't the deadline that ended this season. 

[Vodka Drunkenski]

This was a fun thread to read

[siddious]

1 hour ago, Flynn said:

Look at the last 25 deadlines and tell me who used the deadline to move from “solid contender” to Cup Winner. It’s not a layup that a GM nails every year. 
 

The deadline is looked at with this mythical aura- when in reality it either 1) helps sure up a hole or 2 down lineup for an already great team. 2) results in an over pay for a guy(s) that don’t get you over the hump. 

 

I don't think a Jake Guentzel type player was the magic pill to get this team over the hump. The reality is that “magic pill” guy doesn’t happen very often. Butch Gorings don’t grown on trees. We can shit on Drury for the deadline all day long, but the issue was the 16+ skaters that weren’t added to the lineup weren’t good enough- it wasn't the deadline that ended this season. 

I think most teams just try to add depth honestly. Very rarely do you see the tarasenko to rangers or guentzel type deals. 

[Flynn]

For the all the acrimony and occasional bickering we have here- I was cruising X and saw some post season themed Ranger talk, I took a look. Jesus H.- Rangers Twitter is full of dumb shit and absolutely ridiculous takes. This place isn't Jonestown when it comes to in-line following the narrative, but at least the differing opinions are well founded and the authors aren't lunatics (most of the time). 

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Flynn said:

For the all the acrimony and occasional bickering we have here- I was cruising X and saw some post season themed Ranger talk, I took a look. Jesus H.- Rangers Twitter is full of dumb shit and absolutely ridiculous takes. This place isn't Jonestown when it comes to in-line following the narrative, but at least the differing opinions are well founded and the authors aren't lunatics (most of the time). 

The first rule of Rangers Twitter is don't go to Rangers Twitter. 

[Flynn]

@Phil has a reply about a Goodorw potential buyout- the reasonability of it stood out like a turd in a punchbowl full of takes like  "If Edmonton loses, they will shake it up- Kakko, Robertson and a 4th for McDavid" "Pararin should be #1 on the buyout list" "I'm not sure what everyone was watching, Trouba was really good this post season- Fox is the guy to move on from, he's just not it" 

[Pete]

48 minutes ago, Flynn said:

@Phil has a reply about a Goodorw potential buyout- the reasonability of it stood out like a turd in a punchbowl full of takes like  "If Edmonton loses, they will shake it up- Kakko, Robertson and a 4th for McDavid" "Pararin should be #1 on the buyout list" "I'm not sure what everyone was watching, Trouba was really good this post season- Fox is the guy to move on from, he's just not it" 

The second rule of Rangers Twitter is don't ever say @Phil said something "reasonable".

[LindG1000]

18 hours ago, Albatrosss said:

but we do know what was offered and what was taken.  Duclair was traded for a prospect and a 3rd round pick.  Surely SJ would've taken a first rounder instead if Drury offered. 

 

It doesnt matter how many points Duclair scored in TB, he was still a better offensive option than Roslovic

 

Was he? We don't know that. Roslovic had 7 points in 10 games through the first two rounds. We have no idea if Duclair would have been better, especially since they're both offensively streaky speedsters with backchecking problems.

 

We also didn't have a third rounder to give SJ. We would have had to give a first. Maybe they could have flipped us the Devils 2nd as a counterbalance or something, but the fit wassn't there.

[Phil]

44 minutes ago, Pete said:

The second rule of Rangers Twitter is don't ever say @Phil said something "reasonable".

 

Huh? I never said any of this lol.

[Pete]

29 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Huh? I never said any of this lol.

Dude You need to stop skimming. 

 

@Flynnsaid that you had a reasonable take on Twitter and I told him never to give you credit for being reasonable. 

[Albatrosss]

1 hour ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Was he? We don't know that. Roslovic had 7 points in 10 games through the first two rounds. We have no idea if Duclair would have been better, especially since they're both offensively streaky speedsters with backchecking problems.

 

We also didn't have a third rounder to give SJ. We would have had to give a first. Maybe they could have flipped us the Devils 2nd as a counterbalance or something, but the fit wassn't there.

you dont think Duclair is a better offensive player than Roslovic?  really?

 

Duclair-15 points and +6 in 17 games since traded to TB

Roslovic-8 points and -1 in 19 games since traded to NYR

 

 

[Albatrosss]

3 hours ago, Flynn said:

For the all the acrimony and occasional bickering we have here- I was cruising X and saw some post season themed Ranger talk, I took a look. Jesus H.- Rangers Twitter is full of dumb shit and absolutely ridiculous takes. This place isn't Jonestown when it comes to in-line following the narrative, but at least the differing opinions are well founded and the authors aren't lunatics (most of the time). 

Thank you

[Albatrosss]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Huh? I never said any of this lol.

Skimmer!!  

 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Dude You need to stop skimming. 

 

@Flynnsaid that you had a reasonable take on Twitter and I told him never to give you credit for being reasonable. 

 

LMFAO. Fair. And double fair.