Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Free Agent Target: Patrick Kane; Update: Re-Signs with Red Wings


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

This sounds like the argument for acquiring him in '22-23.

 

How would things be different this time around?

As opppsed to when we got him just for the sake of getting him, he would have a defined role here now if he was the one to fill the void on the Zibanejad line. Last time around, it was too much rearranging the cupboard. Now, there is a hole in the lineup he would quite easily slide into if they went this route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

As opppsed to when we got him just for the sake of getting him, he would have a defined role here now if he was the one to fill the void on the Zibanejad line. Last time around, it was too much rearranging the cupboard. Now, there is a hole in the lineup he would quite easily slide into if they went this route.


It was pretty much the same top 6 RW hole to fill back then though. Tarasenko was one, but they still kinda needed something else because Laf and Kakko weren’t answers that year.

 

Are you telling HOFer Patrick Kane no powerplay time? Or are you shoehorning him in, taking Zib or Trocheck off, blocking Lafreniere, etc? Feels like too many chefs in the kitchen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:


It was pretty much the same top 6 RW hole to fill back then though. Tarasenko was one, but they still kinda needed something else because Laf and Kakko weren’t answers that year.

 

Are you telling HOFer Patrick Kane no powerplay time? Or are you shoehorning him in, taking Zib or Trocheck off, blocking Lafreniere, etc? Feels like too many chefs in the kitchen again.

If he came, PP2 for him. If I’m rocking the boat for PP1, it’s for Lafreniere.

 

Again, not saying it’s a match made in Heaven for either side. Kane would leave money and PP1 time on the table, and the Rangers can probably give him around what he wants AAV wise for a 1 or 2 year deal. He may want more, but he may be okay taking that for the chance to win. We would be signing him to play in the Top-6, so it’s not exactly like he would be asked to play in a significantly smaller role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

This sounds like the argument for acquiring him in '22-23.

 

How would things be different this time around?

 

Different coach this time.  Let's see how Laviolette and Kane work together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

As opppsed to when we got him just for the sake of getting him, he would have a defined role here now if he was the one to fill the void on the Zibanejad line. Last time around, it was too much rearranging the cupboard. Now, there is a hole in the lineup he would quite easily slide into if they went this route.

He'd also be healthy this time. 

 

This isn't an idea I would fall on my sword over, but if they did it I would just sit back and enjoy the season (which is my plan anyway lol).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I get people saying he wouldn’t be their first or second option. I get wanting younger or bigger.

 

But to be steadfast, 120% against it? I just don’t understand.

 

It's buying further into a window that has proven it has limitations already.

 

Patrick Kane would have been another squashed bug against the Panthers.  That or dancing around the perimeter like Panarin was likely to similar non-effect.

 

He probably would have made the regular season Rangers better but that would have been a wash once the grinding started against a tough/physical Panthers team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares about the Panthers? We might not even have to go through the Panthers next season. The Panthers haven't won the Stanley Cup either. If Edmonton wins with their speed and skill, nobody's going to care about how "physical" they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Pete said:

Who cares about the Panthers? We might not even have to go through the Panthers next season. The Panthers haven't won the Stanley Cup either. If Edmonton wins with their speed and skill, nobody's going to care about how "physical" they are. 

 

We can't beat them with this roster.

 

That's the issue.

 

We're too soft.

Edited by Br4d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

We can't beat them with this roster.

 

That's the issue.

 

We're too soft.

You don't play Florida every year in the postseason.

 

Florida will lose players. The Rangers will add players. 

 

Florida is in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Pete said:

You don't play Florida every year in the postseason.

 

Florida will lose players. The Rangers will add players. 

 

Florida is in the past. 

 

Were you a Ranger's fan when the 70's Flyers kicked our ass up and down the ice year after year?

 

If not that might explain why we view this issue so differently.

 

Edit: the Rangers brought in Nick Fotiu to try to balance things out but Fotiu (who I absolutely loved) was a fighter who could skate some.  The Flyers had a half dozen guys who were skaters who could fight.  Watching the Florida series was painful because they just beat on us unmercifully and very few of the Rangers put up any fight, aside from Igor.

Edited by Br4d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Br4d said:

 

Were you a Ranger's fan when the 70's Flyers kicked our ass up and down the ice year after year?

 

If not that might explain why we view this issue so differently.

That was 50 years ago. Times change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Pete said:

You don't play Florida every year in the postseason.

 

Florida will lose players. The Rangers will add players. 

 

Florida is in the past. 

 

I hope that one of those players would be Reinhart, Kane, or Stamkos.  But it's probably too wishful isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pete said:

That was 50 years ago. Times change. 

 

Not much.

 

Now we have a dominant physical team in the conference that does everything but beat the crap out of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a Matthew Tkachuk thing.  Not that we had a prayer of getting him for various reasons, most of which still plague us, but we had to respond in some way or face the fact that he was a nightmare joining a team with a few other nightmares.

 

We didn't do that and then we got unlucky and got derailed by the one team we probably had very little chance to beat.

 

If we want to see ourselves as a legitimate Stanley Cup contender we have to plan for the ECF going through Florida, or through a team that beats Florida as BrooksBurner pointed out above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

If there’s a team that takes Florida out before the Rangers would hypothetically face them, that team will also be better than the Rangers and it doesn’t matter if they beat Florida with speed or more grit.

Nah. If Boston took out Florida I'm pretty sure the Rangers still beat Boston.

 

That's not how this works. Not even close. 

  • Keeps it 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Br4d said:

This is a Matthew Tkachuk thing.  Not that we had a prayer of getting him for various reasons, most of which still plague us, but we had to respond in some way or face the fact that he was a nightmare joining a team with a few other nightmares.

 

We didn't do that and then we got unlucky and got derailed by the one team we probably had very little chance to beat.

 

If we want to see ourselves as a legitimate Stanley Cup contender we have to plan for the ECF going through Florida, or through a team that beats Florida as BrooksBurner pointed out above.

Tkachuk had 1 goal in the series and is continually worn down by the time the finals come around. 

 

Stop acting like he some type of Jesus unit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Br4d said:

This is a Matthew Tkachuk thing.  Not that we had a prayer of getting him for various reasons, most of which still plague us, but we had to respond in some way or face the fact that he was a nightmare joining a team with a few other nightmares.

 

We didn't do that and then we got unlucky and got derailed by the one team we probably had very little chance to beat.

 

If we want to see ourselves as a legitimate Stanley Cup contender we have to plan for the ECF going through Florida, or through a team that beats Florida as BrooksBurner pointed out above.

 

Others Panthers players besides Tkachuk stepped up in the ECF. Reinhart, Barkov, Bobrovsky, Frosling, Bennett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Forsling, Reinhart, Verhaege, Bennett and Barkov all outplayed Tkachuk against the Rangers.   

I agree with this.

 

Everyone drools over Tkachuk. He’s good. He didn’t play bad against us.

 

But the main thorns for us were the guys listed there.

 

The one extra negative to having to watch Florida in the Finals is having to see Sam Reinhart with whatever that OCD herky jerky thing he does where he looks like he shakes his head and is taking a healthy whiff of filthy ass every 2 seconds. 

Edited by RichieNextel305
  • Like 1
  • Believe 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Pete said:

Nah. If Boston took out Florida I'm pretty sure the Rangers still beat Boston.

 

That's not how this works. Not even close. 


But they didn’t because they didn’t play well enough to do it did they? Your point is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:


But they didn’t because they didn’t play well enough to do it did they? Your point is moot.

Stop looking in the past. Teams that try to defeat last year's demons don't often find future success. 

 

Again, everybody likes to point at Florida and say they traded their best player after a flame out, But the fact of the matter is that's an edge case. 

 

Show me throughout history where that was repeatable. 

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I agree with this.

 

Everyone drools over Tkachuk. He’s good. He didn’t play bad against us.

 

But the main thorns for us were the guys listed there.

 

The one extra negative to having to watch Florida in the Finals is having to see Sam Reinhart with whatever that OCD herky jerky thing he does where he looks like he shakes his head and is taking a healthy whiff of filthy ass every 2 seconds. 

 

Speaking of Reinhart, will the Panthers re-sign him or let him walk in July?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Pete said:

Stop looking in the past. Teams that try to defeat last year's demons don't often find future success. 

 

Again, everybody likes to point at Florida and say they traded their best player after a flame out, But the fact of the matter is that's an edge case. 

 

Show me throughout history where that was repeatable. 

 

I look at the past but not how you are suggesting that I look at it. They've lost to different teams, so no they shouldn't chase "how to beat Florida" specifically.

 

2 seasons ago they lost to a team that was more experienced, structured, and had a better forecheck than them in Tampa.

1 season ago they lost to a team that was faster and had a better forecheck than them in New Jersey.

This year they lost to a team that was bigger, stronger, and had a better forecheck than them in Florida.

 

The commonality from my point of view is the Rangers can't stop a good forecheck, and they struggle mightily to create a good one of their own. Whether the forecheck is driven by speed or physicality, it doesn't matter. They can't prevent it and they consistently get pinned in their own end. It's no way to win a Cup.

Edited by BrooksBurner
  • Keeps it 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...