BrooksBurner Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Phil said: Again, not to be glib, but I don't care. Win. If that means Kane, that means Kane. If that means Laf doesn't get the runway he wants to be more productive, oh fucking well. I mean, I get it. If they wind up winning, who gives a fuck. I agree. That's more of a hindsight take though. Something you feel after the goal has been accomplished. I just don't see it as that simple. The same mindset is probably what Calgary was thinking when they made that Tkachuk trade for Huberdeau and Weegar, and signing Kadri forever, instead of totally super jumping a rebuild. Now they are in an absolute world of hurt. I just can't abide by that type of reckless abandon. Edit: It depends on the heat from ownership. Drury won't give a fuck nor should he if he has been told his neck is on the line. I doubt that's the case. Edited June 24 by BrooksBurner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 9 minutes ago, Phil said: It's not. Hartman. Tuch. Jeannot. Three names. There are probably a lot more we're just not talking about. Max Domi would qualify. He's UFA. What I want, personally, is a dynamic shift in playing style to add to what they have already that we know works well in the regular season but doesn't translate to the post-season. I'm not asking them to replicate any other team. I'm asking them to change their mix by adding players that I think are better designed for playoffs success. I'm not telling you this is the only way it can be done, I'm telling you that I believe Brian Boyle when he says that every year, teams with "big boys that can move" go far. I don’t dislike any of those guys. But if them, the only sure fire top line wing is Tuch. Hartman can play there but is better suited to be in a 3rd line role, other than his one monster year. I like all of those guys. But again, would take trades to acquire, and we don’t know if they will produce points. Kane will. And again, if you do sign Kane, with some moving parts I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think you can maybe acquire one of those guys. I would have no issue signing Domi short term to play 3rd line here. Would Minnesota entertain Kakko and 30 OA this year for Hartman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 7 minutes ago, Phil said: It's not. Hartman. Tuch. Jeannot. Three names. There are probably a lot more we're just not talking about. Max Domi would qualify. He's UFA. What I want, personally, is a dynamic shift in playing style to add to what they have already that we know works well in the regular season but doesn't translate to the post-season. I'm not asking them to replicate any other team. I'm asking them to change their mix by adding players that I think are better designed for playoffs success. I'm not telling you this is the only way it can be done, I'm telling you that I believe Brian Boyle when he says that every year, teams with "big boys that can move" go far. There's got to be something that clicks internally as well. They have size in Kreider, Cuylle, Edstrom, Rempe, Miller, Schneider, Trouba for now. They need an aggressive attitude, but that needs to be communicated. Tom Wilson is the nicest human you'll ever meet by all accounts but he will shake your hand outside the rink and then use that same hand to make your face a meatball on the ice. Kreider will shake your hand outside the rink and then make a literature recommendation for reading on the plane in a scrum. Yzerman didn't win a Cup until he bought into playing 200', was 32, and Shanahan got there—who was known to have his wires cross every now and again. Like everything else, the margins are thin and it doesn't take much to flip a switch, so I don't buy this "they are who they are" stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 33 minutes ago, Br4d said: There's no point in not giving Laf power play time at this point. He's going to ask for whatever he asks for based on his view of what he would have if he was on PP1. Seriously, it's totally short-sighted to try to control negotiations with Laf in his RFA years on the theory that he is just going to forgive and forget when UFA rolls around. Right, and it's pretty basic politics with any job. Anybody who gets blocked from a deserved promotion at work goes and finds another job. Of course, the Rangers could just offer him a contract value him based on his 5v5/ES ranking. Laffy might not care as long as he gets his 8+ mill a year and isn't getting short changed because the team is dicking him around about total points per dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said: I don’t dislike any of those guys. But if them, the only sure fire top line wing is Tuch. Hartman can play there but is better suited to be in a 3rd line role, other than his one monster year. I like all of those guys. But again, would take trades to acquire, and we don’t know if they will produce points. Kane will. And again, if you do sign Kane, with some moving parts I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think you can maybe acquire one of those guys. I would have no issue signing Domi short term to play 3rd line here. Would Minnesota entertain Kakko and 30 OA this year for Hartman? Hartman scored 30 goals and centered Minney's top line for a while. He's not "better suited" for a third-line role. He plays anywhere you need him. But again, to my point, I'm looking for a shift in dynamic, even if that players isn't a traditional top-six player because I think that player will drag the traditional top-six players into the fight more often. We've seen first-hand that when this team is forced to respond physically, they respond positively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 4 minutes ago, Pete said: There's got to be something that clicks internally as well. They have size in Kreider, Cuylle, Edstrom, Rempe, Miller, Schneider, Trouba for now. They need an aggressive attitude, but that needs to be communicated. Tom Wilson is the nicest human you'll ever meet by all accounts but he will shake your hand outside the rink and then use that same hand to make your face a meatball on the ice. Kreider will shake your hand outside the rink and then make a literature recommendation for reading on the plane in a scrum. Yzerman didn't win a Cup until he bought into playing 200', was 32, and Shanahan got there—who was known to have his wires cross every now and again. Like everything else, the margins are thin and it doesn't take much to flip a switch, so I don't buy this "they are who they are" stuff. Agreed. That's why I keep coming back to the drag them into the fight thing. It's why I want the dynamic to shift. I think you can get these guys to buy in by basically forcing them to. The more options you give them to stay to the outside, the more I think they'll take those opportunities, so the more I don't want to give them that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, Phil said: Hartman scored 30 goals and centered Minney's top line for a while. He's not "better suited" for a third-line role. He plays anywhere you need him. But again, to my point, I'm looking for a shift in dynamic, even if that players isn't a traditional top-six player because I think that player will drag the traditional top-six players into the fight more often. We've seen first-hand that when this team is forced to respond physically, they respond positively. Hartman scored over 30 once. Other than that, he’s clipped over 20 one other time in his career. I see your point. But wouldn’t necessarily deem him a sure fire answer to our answers on the top line. Thats not to say I wouldn’t love having him in the fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 If Lafreniere wants to leave at 27 as a UFA because he didn't get PP1 time at 22 because the team was vertan-laden and going for a Cup, he can fuck right off. See ya. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, Pete said: If Lafreniere wants to leave at 27 as a UFA because he didn't get PP1 time at 22 because the team was vertan-laden and going for a Cup, he can fuck right off. See ya. And I'll happily trade him for a bunch of valuable pieces before then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 30 minutes ago, Pete said: If Lafreniere wants to leave at 27 as a UFA because he didn't get PP1 time at 22 because the team was vertan-laden and going for a Cup, he can fuck right off. See ya. It’s not that black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: It’s not that black and white. By the way, this would technically fall under the reasons why a dynamic shift, not more talent/skill, is the right approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 49 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: Right, and it's pretty basic politics with any job. Anybody who gets blocked from a deserved promotion at work goes and finds another job. Of course, the Rangers could just offer him a contract value him based on his 5v5/ES ranking. Laffy might not care as long as he gets his 8+ mill a year and isn't getting short changed because the team is dicking him around about total points per dollar. $8M/4 yrs would take him up in the neighborhood of UFA. The Rangers could always extend in a couple of years if he was seriously outplaying that contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlairBettsBlocksEverything Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlairBettsBlocksEverything Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 If Frank Seravalli is reporting it there's definitely some juice to the rumors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 7 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said: My translation of this is it's great for a team that needs high end PP and offense with established zone possession, but it looks like the opposite of what's needed. Zone entry is low. Forecheck involvement is low. EV offense WAR is low. Rush offense is meh. He's slow. He's unphysical. These are the things the top 6 suck at. It feels like pro-Kane folks are playing EA Sports on this one. "But he's an 87 overall for 5 milly! Ship it!" Edited June 24 by BrooksBurner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 14 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: My translation of this is it's great for a team that needs high end PP and offense with established zone possession, but it looks like the opposite of what's needed. Zone entry is low. Forecheck involvement is low. EV offense WAR is low. Rush offense is meh. He's slow. He's unphysical. These are the things the top 6 suck at. It feels like pro-Kane folks are playing EA Sports on this one. "But he's an 87 overall for 5 milly! Ship it!" No disrespect man, but if anyone is playing EA Sports, it may be the guy looking to deal Artemi Panarin to Boston. And I say that with love. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 So we're NOT getting Kane to forecheck?! Well if he's not going to, who on his like possibly can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 25 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: My translation of this is it's great for a team that needs high end PP and offense with established zone possession, but it looks like the opposite of what's needed. Zone entry is low. Forecheck involvement is low. EV offense WAR is low. Rush offense is meh. He's slow. He's unphysical. These are the things the top 6 suck at. It feels like pro-Kane folks are playing EA Sports on this one. "But he's an 87 overall for 5 milly! Ship it!" Right. On paper, the idea is you add Kane and then "convert" Zibanejad and Kreider in to streaking offensive options who shoot the puck. It can work, but it's risky, and doesn't change the principle point of failure for why Zibanejad failed to do the same. It's one player expected to carry the load and act as the primary puck distributor. Kane can absolutely do this, but why should we believe the outcome in the playoffs will be any different? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Kane was 7th among RW at G/60 5v5...his offensive 5v5/60 stats were on par with William Nylander. But please tell me more about how he won't help. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Phil said: Right. On paper, the idea is you add Kane and then "convert" Zibanejad and Kreider in to streaking offensive options who shoot the puck. It can work, but it's risky, and doesn't change the principle point of failure for why Zibanejad failed to do the same. It's one player expected to carry the load and act as the primary puck distributor. Kane can absolutely do this, but why should we believe the outcome in the playoffs will be any different? The Rangers need more five on five scoring. Kane improves the five on five scoring. Kane is a point per game player in the playoffs. This isn't rocket science, it's like all the Galaxy braining is looking deep into secondary and tertiary data for reasons he wouldn't help, and even then it's thin. He absolutely helps. Hard stop. Does that mean we're going to want a cup? Don't be silly. Edited June 24 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, Pete said: Kane was 7th among RW at G/60 5v5...his offensive 5v5/60 stats were on par with William Nylander. But please tell me more about how he won't help. I already said, repeatedly, it will. In the regular season. I have no doubt the offense will be there throughout the year. I question if it will translate to the playoffs based on how the Rangers — not the Blackhawks — are constructed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 21 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said: No disrespect man, but if anyone is playing EA Sports, it may be the guy looking to deal Artemi Panarin to Boston. And I say that with love. None taken. I realize the percentage of that is low. Goodrow out no cap was also low. Ya never know! Keep it in your thoughts and prayers for me! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, Pete said: The Rangers need more five on five scoring. Kane improves the five on five scoring. Kane is a point per game player in the playoffs. This isn't rocket science, it's like all the Galaxy braining is looking deep into secondary and tertiary data for reasons he wouldn't help. I'm not galaxy braining anything. I'm basing this on the player I've watched for the last 15 years. He has incredible skill that's translated to the playoffs on other rosters that had a better grit/skill balance than the Rangers do. You can gloss over this critical context all you like, but it's at the center of why I feel the way I do. It has everything to do with roster construction/balance and nothing to do with any one individual players' history on rosters that aren't this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, Phil said: I already said, repeatedly, it will. In the regular season. I have no doubt the offense will be there throughout the year. I question if it will translate to the playoffs based on how the Rangers — not the Blackhawks — are constructed. Well that post wasn't specifically directed at you but the next one was. However, it sounds like what you're saying is the best American-born player ever was a product of the team construction and he's not a point per game player because he's a generational talent who was drafted first overall? Not sure that checks out, sounds like the narrative of "you have to be bigger" is getting in the way of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Phil said: I'm not galaxy braining anything. I'm basing this on the player I've watched for the last 15 years. He has incredible skill that's translated to the playoffs on other rosters that had a better grit/skill balance than the Rangers do. You can gloss over this critical context all you like, but it's at the center of why I feel the way I do. It has everything to do with roster construction/balance and nothing to do with any one individual players' history on rosters that aren't this one. Sorry but if you're suggesting the best American-born player to ever lace them up was a product of team construction, then you certainly are Galaxy braining it. Anyone looking at stats like "forecheck involvement" when discussing Patrick Kane is Galaxy braining it. Edited June 24 by Pete 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