Pete Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 11 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: I never said hope doesn’t exist. There’s some amount of hope behind everything in sports. Only one team can win. The issue is when it becomes the backbone of a strategy. Like running the same 30+ aged core out there a 5th year in a row. Or hoping a career year at 32 wasn’t a career year. The very reason the term career year exists is because it’s an anomaly that is not repeated. Do you see Kreider scoring 50 again? No. Career year. Anomaly. Well Kreider scored 39 last year playing with a "third line center"... Yea, we shouldn't run out a 30+ aged core, we should trade a 33 year old who's their best offensive player and sign a 34 year old and a 30 year old to deals for the back half of their career instead of just riding out 2 more seasons of one of the best offensive players in the NHL. That, to me, doesn't sound like strategy based on hope at all...no not at all. This is change for change sake, these ideas don't make the team better in the long or short term. It's just playing fantasy manager. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 The Rangers should cash some of the vets in this off-season. Their collective weight is what is going to drag this team down as the window closes. If the ECF was tighter I'd maybe be in the run it back again camp but it really wasn't a close series at all. Much like the TBL ECF in '21-22 the Rangers simply did not have enough players who could turn it up another notch to beat a tough team that was doing exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 4 minutes ago, Pete said: Well Kreider scored 39 last year playing with a "third line center"... Yea, we shouldn't run out a 30+ aged core, we should trade a 33 year old who's their best offensive player and sign a 34 year old and a 30 year old to deals for the back half of their career instead of just riding out 2 more seasons of one of the best offensive players in the NHL. That, to me, doesn't sound like strategy based on hope at all...no not at all. This is change for change sake, these ideas don't make the team better in the long or short term. It's just playing fantasy manager. You’re welcome to your opinion. I disagree. There’s plenty of reason to make the change. Even if it doesn’t result in a Cup, it starts to change the way the game is approached by the next wave of Rangers players. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 32 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: I never said hope doesn’t exist. There’s some amount of hope behind everything in sports. Only one team can win. The issue is when it becomes the backbone of a strategy. Like running the same 30+ aged core out there a 5th year in a row. Or hoping a career year at 32 wasn’t a career year. The very reason the term career year exists is because it’s an anomaly that is not repeated. Do you see Kreider scoring 50 again? No. Career year. Anomaly. Wait didn't you just post a line up where you traded Panarin and signed soon to be 34 year old Marchessault? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 (edited) 17 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: You’re welcome to your opinion. I disagree. There’s plenty of reason to make the change. Even if it doesn’t result in a Cup, it starts to change the way the game is approached by the next wave of Rangers players. There are reasons to make change. But the fact is any scenario that begins with "get player to wiave full NMC" and ends with "take no money back" aren't realistic. Realistically, a GM is probably looking at what he can move to make what he can't move better. Everyone's pointing at the Tkachuk trade which is (A) a blockbuster trade that rarely happens and (B) included a player that really just doesn't exist anywhere else in the league today. If you don't think getting the Conference Finals and losing doesn't affect the approach for the young players (or the current ones), I don't know what to tell you. I can assure you this loss hurts them way more than it hurts you because they've all worked their whole lives to get to this point. If they didn't answer certain questions in a way that you deem fit, then I also don't know what to tell you other than everyone handles disappointment differently. I got over this loss the next day. Some others will complain until next April. Doesn't make one fan better than another, and it doesn't make one athlete better than another. You don't get to the NHL without a competitive fire. Edited June 15 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 5 minutes ago, Long live the King said: Wait didn't you just post a line up where you traded Panarin and signed soon to be 34 year old Marchessault? Last I looked, Marchessault has a Cup to his name and is not part of the current core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 41 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: Last I looked, Marchessault has a Cup to his name and is not part of the current core. So what? How much are and how long is he signing for? Goodrow has cups too. What part of a 5'9" mid 30's player is the difference maker here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 51 minutes ago, Pete said: There are reasons to make change. But the fact is any scenario that begins with "get player to wiave full NMC" and ends with "take no money back" aren't realistic. Realistically, a GM is probably looking at what he can move to make what he can't move better. Everyone's pointing at the Tkachuk trade which is (A) a blockbuster trade that rarely happens and (B) included a player that really just doesn't exist anywhere else in the league today. If you don't think getting the Conference Finals and losing doesn't affect the approach for the young players (or the current ones), I don't know what to tell you. I can assure you this loss hurts them way more than it hurts you because they've all worked their whole lives to get to this point. If they didn't answer certain questions in a way that you deem fit, then I also don't know what to tell you other than everyone handles disappointment differently. I got over this loss the next day. Some others will complain until next April. Doesn't make one fan better than another, and it doesn't make one athlete better than another. You don't get to the NHL without a competitive fire. Blockbusters are rare. But VGK got Eichel and Panthers got Tkachuk and it has worked out. Also no tax states, but I digress. it's not the only way to win, but it's a way. NYR have failed to attain the summit because every time they get close there's too many passengers. Mindset issue? There is talent here, but you can't have long stretches where you aren't offensively dangerous. Whether they can change that internally with new kids, or need to make The Move, Chris Drury's job right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 9 minutes ago, Bugg said: Blockbusters are rare. But VGK got Eichel and Panthers got Tkachuk and it has worked out. Also no tax states, but I digress. it's not the only way to win, but it's a way. Two players forcing their way out of town, with specific destinations in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 5 minutes ago, Long live the King said: So what? How much are and how long is he signing for? Goodrow has cups too. What part of a 5'9" mid 30's player is the difference maker here? I’m not going to get caught up on names. It’s the concept behind it. $14.5m for Drury to change the look and approach of the top 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 4 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: I’m not going to get caught up on names. It’s the concept behind it. $14.5m for Drury to change the look and approach of the top 6. Everyone understands the concept. The issue is that executing your concept is nearly impossible, which is why you don't want to get caught up in names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 21 minutes ago, Long live the King said: Everyone understands the concept. The issue is that executing your concept is nearly impossible, which is why you don't want to get caught up in names. Trading one player might seem impossible to you, but not to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 9 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: Trading one player might seem impossible to you, but not to me. Anything is possible. He could get hit by a bus tomorrow. That's possible. Effort should be spent on what's realistic. It's unrealistic to think that he'll wave and it's unrealistic to think that a team that just got steamrolled by Florida would want to spend half of their available cap on a forward that we're moving because you are main complaint about him is that he gets steamrolled against physical teams. So there's no reason for him to wave and there's no reason for Boston to want him. This is a trade that worked out on paper because of math, but is just not going to happen in real life. I'd rather the GM spend time on realistic improvements to the team and not on desperate attempts to get rid of one specific player by any means necessary. Unless that player is Trouba. That guy stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 Just now, Pete said: Anything is possible. He could get hit by a bus tomorrow. That's possible. Effort should be spent on what's realistic. It's unrealistic to think that he'll wave and it's unrealistic to think that a team that just got steamrolled by Florida would want to spend half of their available cap on a forward that we're moving because you are main complaint about him is that he gets steamrolled against physical teams. So there's no reason for him to wave and there's no reason for Boston to want him. This is a trade that worked out on paper because of math, but is just not going to happen in real life. I'd rather the GM spend time on realistic improvements to the team and not on desperate attempts to get rid of one specific player by any means necessary. Unless that player is Trouba. That guy stinks. You’re spending an awful lot of time defending something you think is supposedly unrealistic. My takeaway is you know it’s realistic and you don’t like that it’s in the realm of possibilities simply because it involves Panarin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 (edited) 43 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: You’re spending an awful lot of time defending something you think is supposedly unrealistic. My takeaway is you know it’s realistic and you don’t like that it’s in the realm of possibilities simply because it involves Panarin. Um...I'm not defending anything? It's your position that you threw out there, what do I have to defend? I'm explaining your position is unrealistic because it is. The trade works on paper but nowhere else. If you think it's a realistic that Drury is going to call Panarin tomorrow and ask that he wave to go to Boston, and then he's going to call Boston and offer Panarin without taking any salary back, and that Boston is going to say "sure, we'll take that guy who didn't help you get past Florida because we couldn't get past Florida either..." Then I would just love a hit of whatever it is you're on because it's literally the best drugs ever. The idea alone that Boston of all teams would want a player that You are so desperate to move because of his performance against Florida, when Boston dealt with the same thing from Pasta is enough for you to have just said "yeah, Boston might not be interested"... For that reason alone. Yet you just double down instead of admitting it makes no sense. Edited June 15 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 8 minutes ago, Pete said: Um...I'm not defending anything? It's your position that you threw out there, what do I have to defend? I'm explaining your position is unrealistic because it is. The trade works on paper but nowhere else. If you think it's a realistic that Drury is going to call Panarin tomorrow and ask that he wave to go to Boston, and then he's going to call Boston and offer Panarin without taking any salary back, and that Boston is going to say "sure, we'll take that guy who didn't help you get past Florida because we couldn't get past Florida either..." Then I would just love a hit of whatever it is you're on because it's literally the best drugs ever. The idea alone that Boston of all teams would want a player that You are so desperate to move because of his performance against Florida, when Boston dealt with the same thing from Pasta is enough for you to have just said "yeah, Boston might not be interested"... For that reason alone. Yet you just double down instead of admitting it makes no sense. I already covered all of this reasonably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pete said: Anything is possible. He could get hit by a bus tomorrow. That's possible. Effort should be spent on what's realistic. It's unrealistic to think that he'll wave and it's unrealistic to think that a team that just got steamrolled by Florida would want to spend half of their available cap on a forward that we're moving because you are main complaint about him is that he gets steamrolled against physical teams. So there's no reason for him to wave and there's no reason for Boston to want him. This is a trade that worked out on paper because of math, but is just not going to happen in real life. I'd rather the GM spend time on realistic improvements to the team and not on desperate attempts to get rid of one specific player by any means necessary. Unless that player is Trouba. That guy stinks. Suspect you're correct. Tkachuk is right now anyway not shooting his way out of Ottawa. And dirty little secret; he isn't shooting his way out to hand over 10%+ of his income to NY state and city either. As an American, at some point he's gonna get tired of handing over gobs of $ to Canada, but does he want to come here? The NHL hasn't factored this into their cap calculations. And further NYC isn't the Emerald City it used to be. But may be a guy like Shane Pinto, big center? There's again more than one way to win. But it needs to be more forceful offensively. This core group has a bad reputation in the playoffs. Don't doubt for a 2nd they're trying, but it's not focused nor good enough. Led how many series and had chances to put they're feet on the throats. And it doesn't happen and they shat the bed instead. Gotta change some variables. Edited June 15 by Bugg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 48 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: I already covered all of this reasonably. You've never covered why Boston would want him for the reasons you don't. To "help Pasta" when in your opinion he doesn't help anyone completely nullifies the reasonability of any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 17 minutes ago, Pete said: You've never covered why Boston would want him for the reasons you don't. To "help Pasta" when in your opinion he doesn't help anyone completely nullifies the reasonability of any of it. This is just you not reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 25 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: This is just you not reading Nah. It's me but buying it because it doesn't really make much sense. Have a good weekend and enjoy Father's Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said: Trading one player might seem impossible to you, but not to me. I didn't say trading him is impossible. Replacing him with Marchessault and Bertuzzi doesn't make the team better. Bertuzzi sucks and Marchessault is old. Gonna sign a 34 year old for 4-5 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Long live the King said: I didn't say trading him is impossible. Replacing him with Marchessault and Bertuzzi doesn't make the team better. Bertuzzi sucks and Marchessault is old. Gonna sign a 34 year old for 4-5 years? I don't agree about the bold. This is why I don't want to pick apart the names I put in that example. I'm sure you can find 2 players that you personally like on the FA list to round out the top 6. Names are very subjective. What's not subjective is Panarin isn't good enough in the playoffs to be worth the paycheck. AFP projects 3 years at 6.3m for Marchessault, by the way. Edited June 15 by BrooksBurner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 Marchessault had more than half his career playoff production in 2 runs. The rest of the runs are pretty blah. Now your asking him to leave a team with Eichel and Stone, come to a team you think has no #1C, and be the guy from age 34-36? I don't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said: I don't agree about the bold. This is why I don't want to pick apart the names I put in that example. I'm sure you can find 2 players that you personally like on the FA list to round out the top 6. Names are very subjective. What's not subjective is Panarin isn't good enough in the playoffs to be worth the paycheck. AFP projects 3 years at 6.3m for Marchessault, by the way. Think the slam of Panarin is misplaced. 4 GWGs in the 1st 2 rounds, was effective in spurts vs. the Cats. The other guys get paid too. Think you can win with him. Trocheck w him and Laffy is very good. But when your supposed top line does NOTHING, that's a problem. And it looked less like the other guys get paid than something more troubling. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 8 minutes ago, Bugg said: Think the slam of Panarin is misplaced. 4 GWGs in the 1st 2 rounds, was effective in spurts vs. the Cats. The other guys get paid too. Think you can win with him. Trocheck w him and Laffy is very good. But when your supposed top line does NOTHING, that's a problem. And it looked less like the other guys get paid than something more troubling. Yeah, he had me in the first half, then he went 1 goal 6 pts -4 in the last 9. He wasn’t terrible like Zibanejad, and he was trying, but the reality is that’s just not enough for 12 mill and it’s every year with him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now