BrooksBurner Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 43 minutes ago, Pete said: I'll feel fine because NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN! Anyone who thinks they're Nostradamus for "predicting" the Rangers wouldn't win has some great drugs. Winning is hard. Sitting there predicting your team will lose doesn't make you a psychic, The probability is most teams will not win the cup this year. 4 really good teams made the conference finals. Only one team will win a Cup. Again, of your mentality as a fan is "Cup or bust" You're just doing it wrong because you're setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment. I don't know what "as bad as a rebuild" means, there's plenty to enjoy about a rebuild. You see younger players sooner, they get more ice time, there's the potential of what could be... It's a great time to be a fan. All this shit is cyclical, if you can't find the joy in rebuilding as well as winning, then why bother? You have to figure out a way to enjoy the journey and not just the destination otherwise you're just set up to be miserable. You are good with losing and never winning a championship. We get it. You’ve magically reached a level of zen now after two years of literally whining about Gallant. Not sure why you were whining so much. They were still a playoff team well over 100 points. This is why I labeled it faux optimism. I don’t buy it. You have just been forced into pretending you don’t care about winning a Cup so you don’t have to defend your hypocrisy. The same stats that said they weren’t good under Gallant, were the same stats that said they weren’t that good under Laviolette. You were wrong. It was more than the coach. Own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Just now, BrooksBurner said: You are good with losing and never winning a championship. We get it. You’ve magically reached a level of zen now after two years of literally whining about Gallant. Not sure why you were whining so much. They were still a playoff team well over 100 points. This is why I labeled it faux optimism. I don’t buy it. You have just been forced into pretending you don’t care about winning a Cup so you don’t have to defend your hypocrisy. The same stats that said they weren’t good under Gallant, were the same stats that said they weren’t that good under Laviolette. You were wrong. It was more than the coach. Own it. You’re in your 70’s Larry. And you’ve been writing and talking about hockey since Gerald Ford was president. Maybe you should be the one who gives it a rest. There’s a new Charlie’s Angels this week. You’re watching it, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 1 minute ago, RangersIn7 said: You’re in your 70’s Larry. And you’ve been writing and talking about hockey since Gerald Ford was president. Maybe you should be the one who gives it a rest. There’s a new Charlie’s Angels this week. You’re watching it, right? And yet my takes are still way better than yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 32 minutes ago, LindG1000 said: There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Without his 120 points, we don't make the playoffs. Full stop. You either run with him and add around the edges, or you make your team jarringly worse because you're big mad that the two best defensive teams in the NHL found a way to shut down one of the top 5 playmakers in the league. And then on top, you create further significant cap complications by signing worse players to bigger, longer deals. We aren't a better team with Guentzel and Bertuzzi signed to 7-year deals, for example. There are maybe 10 guys in the league that complete the sentence, and unless you've got a plan to convince Colorado that Artemi Panarin is a better fit on their team than Nathan Mackinnon, or a plan to convince Edmonton that Panarin's a better fit than McDavid or Draisaitl, we're left with what amounts to the hockey equivalent of the celebrity hall pass arrangement you've got with your wife. Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said: Wrong. I've always appreciated your efficiency with words. It takes true editorial talent to get nowhere that quickly. I'm still waiting for the better idea. So far, it's just "trade Panarin because we keep losing with him" without a plan to actually, you know, get better for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 4 hours ago, Br4d said: Editing again: Rip the band-aid off and find a home for Panarin that he is willing to accept. He's the poster boy for why the Rangers can't win late in the playoffs. This or trading Kreider for a prospect/pick haul are the best 2 options. One of them has to go because of this, which I fully agree with: Quote If you want Laf to carry the puck he needs to be on the left side. The best plays he made on the right last season were all on the boards and springing somebody for a breakaway. He's really good at that but he can't carry the puck well on that side. Enough with the charade. He's the guy for the next 10 years. Put him where he belongs and quit fucking around. The difference between the two options is that trading Panarin frees up so much cap, they have a chance to build a better playoff roster with the right moves in free agency. That's not attainable if they trade Kreider. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Just now, BrooksBurner said: This or trading Kreider for a prospect/pick haul are the best 2 options. One of them has to go because of this, which I fully agree with: Enough with the charade. He's the guy for the next 10 years. Put him where he belongs and quit fucking around. The difference between the two options is that trading Panarin frees up so much cap, they have a chance to build a better playoff roster with the right moves in free agency. That's not attainable if they trade Kreider. They don't. This free agency class is a minefield of overpaid mediocrity and two monster gambles at the top. I don't know if Guentzel will ever be worth what he's going to get paid, and I don't know if Reinhart is half the player without Barkov. I mean...again, why move Panarin? For...Reinhart? For Nikita Zadorov? These aren't moves that make us better. We can already afford the moves to make us a better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) 33 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: You are good with losing and never winning a championship. We get it. Well, I don't win or lose because I'm not playing. I win because I enjoy watching the team play. You lose because you spend 90% of your day immersed in a team you hate. Doesn't seem smart to me. But do you. Quote You’ve magically reached a level of zen now after two years of literally whining about Gallant.Not sure why you were whining so much. They were still a playoff team well over 100 points. Yea because a good team was being wasted. Even then, again, when the playoffs started, I always said just win 16 games, I don't care how. You should try actually rooting for the team. It makes the game much more enjoyable, instead of wallowing in your own misery and bad ideas. Quote This is why I labeled it faux optimism. I don’t buy it. Luckily for us, no one here cares what you buy or don't buy. Quote You have just been forced into pretending you don’t care about winning a Cup so you don’t have to defend your hypocrisy. I'm sure this is the perception in your warped reality. I would be ecstatic if they won a Cup. But if they don't, they don't. They still had a great season. Your constant bitching doesn't change that. Quote The same stats that said they weren’t good under Gallant, were the same stats that said they weren’t that good under Laviolette. But they weren't and it's already been debunked. You repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Quote You were wrong. It was more than the coach. Own it. It was. And I already said going back to last year, you don't know what this team is until you see them under a coach who's actually...coaching. And I think it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt at this point that Gallant wasn't. The media and the players have all pretty much confirmed that. And I already said I'd listen to offers for anyone on the team. But I also realize what's realistic and what isn't so I don't say shit like Drury should steamroll players into waiving their NMCs or just make Panarin's hit disappear and suggest trading him and adding players who are not as good from teams who also lost to Florida as if it's some remedy to beat Florida who by the way might not win a Cup and is likely to be a very different team next season. If you want people to own shit, maybe you can own that half your posts are talking out of both sides of your mouth and the other half are EA Sports trade scenarios. Edited June 23 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) 25 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: This or trading Kreider for a prospect/pick haul are the best 2 options. One of them has to go because of this, which I fully agree with: Enough with the charade. He's the guy for the next 10 years. Put him where he belongs and quit fucking around. So aside from that fake scouting report that's supported with zero evidence and is completely anecdotal, let me get this straight...You want a kid who just had his best season playing on the right side of Panarin....To move back to the left after moving Panarin? Seems legit. Quote The difference between the two options is that trading Panarin frees up so much cap, they have a chance to build a better playoff roster with the right moves in free agency. That's not attainable if they trade Kreider. The only charade is the idea that you can just "find a home" for Panarin and that you're freeing up "so much cap". It's bullshit. They will take a bad contract back, or they will retain. So they will now have, let's be generous, $6-8M to replace the production of an $11M player. In this free agent market. Again, seems legit. But it's not attainable of they trade Kreider, why? Because he's a better value contract? Or because they won't have to retain? Or because you're more likely to get close to equal value back if you move him? This shit can't be taken seriously. Edited June 23 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) 41 minutes ago, LindG1000 said: I've always appreciated your efficiency with words. It takes true editorial talent to get nowhere that quickly. I'm still waiting for the better idea. So far, it's just "trade Panarin because we keep losing with him" without a plan to actually, you know, get better for it. Well I mean you are saying something is an unchallengeable fact to people who are challenging it. What do you expect? You're wrong to say that. That's not me saying that your opinion that his production is irreplaceable is invalid or irrational, even if I disagree with it. It's not a bad take. I just like mine better With Schneider at 2.25, Lindgren at 4.25, and Panarin's cap out, they would have a hair under 18 million to sign 2 top 6 players and either a 3rd line player (alternative: Berard or Othmann slug it out for the spot) or a defensive upgrade (alternative: Zac Jones gets the 3LD spot). Here's a hypothetical example using AFP's contract projections (scratches are placeholders, I don't care who): Now you can say you don't think this is better than a lineup than one you can create with Panarin in it, and that's fine, but I don't see why it's unreasonable to think that this lineup could offer more hardnosed play in the playoffs. Maybe they win fewer regular season games because Panarin is just a god there, you'll likely lose a few extra games from not having him on PP/4v4/3v3/shootout, but when it comes down to needing to create a forecheck in the playoffs, I'm taking my chances with the above. That's all. Edited June 23 by BrooksBurner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJWantsTheCup Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 I doubt Lindgren signs for under 4.5M and there’s no world that exists where you can just get rid of Panarin’s salary magically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 2 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said: I doubt Lindgren signs for under 4.5M and there’s no world that exists where you can just get rid of Panarin’s salary magically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 35 minutes ago, LindG1000 said: They don't. This free agency class is a minefield of overpaid mediocrity and two monster gambles at the top. I don't know if Guentzel will ever be worth what he's going to get paid, and I don't know if Reinhart is half the player without Barkov. I mean...again, why move Panarin? For...Reinhart? For Nikita Zadorov? These aren't moves that make us better. We can already afford the moves to make us a better team. I believe a better built team can operate at a sum greater than its parts. I prioritize establishing a forecheck in the OZ during the playoffs. Is Panarin and a $3 million player going to score more points across 82 games than a Guentzel/Bertuzzi pairing? Maybe. I trust the other two to go to the net and buy in to a N/S forechecking game, and enough talent there to convert scoring chances when they get looks. A good forecheck helps the defensive personnel from always having to play defense. So I’d focus there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said: And yet my takes are still way better than yours Keep on thinking so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 10 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said: Keep on thinking so. I know you’re a long time Post subscriber. Thank you for the support! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 31 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: I know you’re a long time Post subscriber. Thank you for the support! I learned to read when I was 5. I stopped subscribing to the Post when I was 3. And in between that time… I learnt to talk English good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 19 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said: I learned to read when I was 5. I stopped subscribing to the Post when I was 3. And in between that time… I learnt to talk English good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Oh god! The SCF isn't even over and we're in the off-season doldrums. Do you think the Sharks would claim Panarin if we put him on waivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said: Your chin isn’t the only thing you rub vigorously when you’re alone! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 57 minutes ago, Br4d said: Oh god! The SCF isn't even over and we're in the off-season doldrums. Do you think the Sharks would claim Panarin if we put him on waivers? I think the 93 Whalers trade me Pronger and Verbeek. For a 1st round pick and some stuff. Cause you think it’s possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Would Panarin possibly clear waivers if we put him on the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 5 minutes ago, Br4d said: Would Panarin possibly clear waivers if we put him on the list? I think if we put you on waivers you'd clear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 14 minutes ago, Pete said: I think if we put you on waivers you'd clear. No doubt but my initial question remains: would Artemi Panarin go unclaimed if we waived him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 26 minutes ago, Br4d said: No doubt but my initial question remains: would Artemi Panarin go unclaimed if we waived him? Absolutely positively not. He is one of the Top-10 players in the league. He makes a lot of money. But he just scored 120 points. He wouldn’t make it past the first team that had the cap space to bring him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Damn. Wish we could waive him. And no I don't dislike him at all but I absolutely hate his performance when we are within striking distance of a Stanley Cup. You don't get there that often and when you do you'd better be ready to play. 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