Phil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 12 hours ago, Pete said: Well one player you're signing for 7 years at 10 million and the other player you're probably signing for 2 at 5. You're comparing bowling pins and thimbles. I know, and I'm not trying to be a dick when I say this, but I don't care. Specifically, I don't care about the future. The team is built to win now, so win now. I'm only interested in acquiring or signing players who can help them do that. It's why I'm expressly against the idea of bringing in more of the same. I only want guys who play in the middle of the ice coming in, even if it means fucking up the cap, maybe, possibly, potentially, four years from now. This kind of perfectly illustrates how differently we see this. You're trying to craft a successful long-term picture. I'm trying to build a championship team that I don't care if it collapses the moment they lift the Cup. I just want to win. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Phil said: This kind of perfectly illustrates how differently we see this. You're trying to craft a successful long-term picture. I'm trying to build a championship team that I don't care if it collapses the moment they lift the Cup. I just want to win. I don't know where you're getting this from but it couldn't be further from the truth. I was the one who was saying that I don't care if they run it back because they're in Eastern conference finalists and president's trophy winner. You guys act like that doesn't mean anything, but it does. I was the one that was saying it was a race to 16 wins and it doesn't matter how you get there. You guys are the ones who are concerned with how the wins come. I'm not. I don't know where you get that "I'm trying to build" anything. I don't make these decisions and neither do you. I'm simply saying you're stuck on one way to do this, and I'm telling you there's a different way to do it. Whether or not you believe it is up to you and frankly I don't care what anyone else believes at this point. Where we actually differ is, I understand that the team will make the best decisions it can in the situation that they're in. If they're not necessarily the decisions I'd make, I'm not going to bitch about it for 8 months. I'm just going to get on board and enjoy the season and not cry and whine about who's still here, who's so sad, have they should have done it my way, etc. I'll just enjoy the hockey and I'll leave the bitching and moaning about the team to others. I do however reserve the right to bitch and moan about the criers and whiners here. Point being They only needed one goal in each of the games against Florida. It was that close. If you don't think Patrick Kane can get you a goal or set one up in the playoffs, then you haven't been watching. Edited June 20 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodka Drunkenski Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 We might be close to losing the one sole reason those were one goal games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 1 minute ago, Vodka Drunkenski said: We might be close to losing the one sole reason those were one goal games Sure. But not this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 22 minutes ago, Pete said: I don't know where you're getting this from but it couldn't be further from the truth. I was the one who was saying that I don't care if they run it back because they're in Eastern conference finalists and president's trophy winner. You guys act like that doesn't mean anything, but it does. I was the one that was saying it was a race to 16 wins and it doesn't matter how you get there. You guys are the ones who are concerned with how the wins come. I'm not. I don't know where you get that "I'm trying to build" anything. I don't make these decisions and neither do you. I'm simply saying you're stuck on one way to do this, and I'm telling you there's a different way to do it. Whether or not you believe it is up to you and frankly I don't care what anyone else believes at this point. Where we actually differ is, I understand that the team will make the best decisions it can in the situation that they're in. If they're not necessarily the decisions I'd make, I'm not going to bitch about it for 8 months. I'm just going to get on board and enjoy the season and not cry and whine about who's still here, who's so sad, have they should have done it my way, etc. I'll just enjoy the hockey and I'll leave the bitching and moaning about the team to others. I do however reserve the right to bitch and moan about the criers and whiners here. Point being They only needed one goal in each of the games against Florida. It was that close. If you don't think Patrick Kane can get you a goal or set one up in the playoffs, then you haven't been watching. Because you're talking about why signing Guentzel (placeholder name) is a bad thing versus signing Kane (because he's short-term). I know I'm like a broken record about it, but I'll say it again: Dave Nonis was right. Clarkson was the wrong player, but Nonis' philosophy was correct: I'm not worried about year six or seven. I'm worried about year one, and in year one, I'm getting a player I know can help us win. The Rangers lost because the middle of the ice got taken away from them. Kane doesn't play in the middle of the ice, so signing him, no matter how successful he's been in the playoffs in years past on different rosters doesn't just not change the dynamic, it adds to the reason they lost. It ensures that 1/6th of the top-six next spring will, in all likelihood, produce the exact same results we just saw. I'm not interested. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 15 minutes ago, Phil said: Because you're talking about why signing Guentzel (placeholder name) is a bad thing versus signing Kane (because he's short-term). I know I'm like a broken record about it, but I'll say it again: Dave Nonis was right. Clarkson was the wrong player, but Nonis' philosophy was correct: I'm not worried about year six or seven. I'm worried about year one, and in year one, I'm getting a player I know can help us win. The Rangers lost because the middle of the ice got taken away from them. Kane doesn't play in the middle of the ice, so signing him, no matter how successful he's been in the playoffs in years past on different rosters doesn't just not change the dynamic, it adds to the reason they lost. It ensures that 1/6th of the top-six next spring will, in all likelihood, produce the exact same results we just saw. I'm not interested. The middle of the ice got taken away… by Florida. We can’t just assume that that is the team that they’re going to have to go through. Are they on the short list of teams to beat? Yes. Is it entirely possible they never see this itineration of the the Panthers in the playoffs ever again? Yes. Last year we lose to the Devils. So what does the fanbase say? Oh, the Devils are so fast and so skilled so we gotta get faster and more skillful too to beat them. Every fanbase does it. Did we see the Devils in the playoffs this year? No. The Devils were playing golf in April in fact. Florida could have key injuries to key guys next year and not get in. Point is… you can’t build your roster to beat one team or one specific type of team. You have to be able to win multiple ways vs all different teams. They just need to get a bit better at a few things. Also…Part of winning a Cup is a good draw and sone luck along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 5 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said: The middle of the ice got taken away… by Florida. We can’t just assume that that is the team that they’re going to have to go through. Are they on the short list of teams to beat? Yes. Is it entirely possible they never see this itineration of the the Panthers in the playoffs ever again? Yes. Last year we lose to the Devils. So what does the fanbase say? Oh, the Devils are so fast and so skilled so we gotta get faster and more skillful too to beat them. Every fanbase does it. Did we see the Devils in the playoffs this year? No. The Devils were playing golf in April in fact. Florida could have key injuries to key guys next year and not get in. Point is… you can’t build your roster to beat one team or one specific type of team. You have to be able to win multiple ways vs all different teams. They just need to get a bit better at a few things. Also…Part of winning a Cup is a good draw and sone luck along the way. The middle of the ice got taken away by New Jersey, Carolina, and Florida. Florida just did it most effectively. If you want to run it back, that's cool. I don't. No amount of appeals to luck will change my mind on that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 We can’t just approach this off-season with the intention of learning how to beat the Florida Panthers. They’re good. They’re likely going to be Champions. But it can’t just be the flavor of the month. Last year, we lose to the Devils and then the mantra is we don’t have enough speed. This year, the speed in our game was apparent but now we don’t have the needed muscle to get to the middle. End of the day, we came up short against a team we didn’t necessarily match up all too well with. I’m not saying we don’t need size. Or we don’t need more guys with sandpaper and grit (John Tortorella isn’t writing this, I swear). That said, we do have a glaring hole on the top line on the right. We also do not have a ton of cap room at our disposal. We have some, not a lot. Everyone keeps talking about a young guy with size, speed, physicality and can score goals. Wonderful. Sign me up. Does that guy exist this off-season? If he does, can we afford him? Probably not, is my guess. Thats why you look at alternate options. Some are younger, some older. Some productive, some with potential. Some with skill, some with speed. Some no experience, some none. No one is advocating that Patrick Kane is the answer to our prayers. But again, if you can get him in here, in a cap world, on a friendly deal for a year, he instantly becomes better than any option we’ve had there in the last 2 seasons. Is it ideal? Is it Option 1? Probably not. But it’s also not a bad option. He had 20 goals and 27 assists in 50 games. That puts him nearly on a 80 point pace across 82 games. And yeah, I did the math this time. So don’t urinate on my math, friends. And he wasn’t a power play merchant either; 2 PPG’s and 13 assists. So he did produce 5v5 too. We don’t have the money as of now to spend on Guentzel. As far as UFAs go, if we have to go bargain bin hunting, Kane isn’t the worst option. No one said the best. But again, we need production there and he produces. He’s not 6’4 and not 26. But the guy still produces points. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 2 minutes ago, Phil said: The middle of the ice got taken away by New Jersey, Carolina, and Florida. Florida just did it most effectively. If you want to run it back, that's cool. I don't. No amount of appeals to luck will change my mind on that. Well… they beat Carolina. So that’s moot. And the Devils didn’t beat them so much as they played like shit and beat themselves. So I disagree. Florida….100% You can’t continuously juggle and remake your roster, or significant portions of said roster, or even significant players on the roster, just because they lost to a specific opponent that plays in a specific way. You can’t run a hockey team that way. No one will want to be in that locker room cause that’s obscene micromanaging. Do I think they need to make some changes/additions/tweaks in some areas? Absolutely. But don’t lose the whole picture cause you’re staring at one or two parts of it… This group has won in 3 seasons 150+ games, a Division title, a President’s Trophy and 2 trips to the ECF. It’s an excellent team. They just need to find a little extra and get a bit better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 2 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said: Well… they beat Carolina. So that’s moot. And the Devils didn’t beat them so much as they played like shit and beat themselves. So I disagree. Florida….100% You can’t continuously juggle and remake your roster, or significant portions of said roster, or even significant players on the roster, just because they lost to a specific opponent that plays in a specific way. You can’t run a hockey team that way. No one will want to be in that locker room cause that’s obscene micromanaging. Do I think they need to make some changes/additions/tweaks in some areas? Absolutely. But don’t lose the whole picture cause you’re staring at one or two parts of it… This group has won in 3 seasons 150+ games, a Division title, a President’s Trophy and 2 trips to the ECF. It’s an excellent team. They just need to find a little extra and get a bit better. A little extra is what we tried to do last season. Great regular season and then we got wiped in the ECF because the team that wiped us literally laughs at our skill players hanging by the boards. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Both things can be true at once. The Rangers lack speed and size. Why do you guys insist on pretending these are separate issues? You're arguing against a straw man. They are small, highly-skilled, relatively slow, and play on the outside. This is mostly OK in the regular season because the opponent changes nightly and it's a different sport. That changes when the playoffs roll around, and the bigger, faster, and meaner teams have shown the world how easy it is to pick this team apart based on this calculation. If you think the solution is to just run it back and keep relying on an aging group of wallflowers who won't play in the middle of the ice no matter how much you pay them, you do you, but stop characterizing the argument this way. It's dishonest. They need to get bigger and faster. Together. Mobility + hostility. Not one or the other, and not one at the expense of the other. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 4 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said: Well… they beat Carolina. So that’s moot. And the Devils didn’t beat them so much as they played like shit and beat themselves. So I disagree. Florida….100% You can’t continuously juggle and remake your roster, or significant portions of said roster, or even significant players on the roster, just because they lost to a specific opponent that plays in a specific way. You can’t run a hockey team that way. No one will want to be in that locker room cause that’s obscene micromanaging. Do I think they need to make some changes/additions/tweaks in some areas? Absolutely. But don’t lose the whole picture cause you’re staring at one or two parts of it… This group has won in 3 seasons 150+ games, a Division title, a President’s Trophy and 2 trips to the ECF. It’s an excellent team. They just need to find a little extra and get a bit better. Great. We agree. Now let's discuss what the actual issue is: how do you get better? If your suggestion is to add more soft-skill only, slow, wallflower players, then I'm sorry, but I'm not on board. It's a recipe for repetition. Maybe they'll win another Presidents Trophy. Yay! Maybe you're happy with that. I'm not. I want one trophy, and one trophy only, and I don't care who has to get run the fuck over to get it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 1 hour ago, Phil said: Because you're talking about why signing Guentzel (placeholder name) is a bad thing versus signing Kane (because he's short-term). I know I'm like a broken record about it, but I'll say it again: Dave Nonis was right. Clarkson was the wrong player, but Nonis' philosophy was correct: I'm not worried about year six or seven. I'm worried about year one, and in year one, I'm getting a player I know can help us win. Yea I'll file this under you're skimming, or strawman. I never said signing Guentzel was a bad thing. I said: Signing him (or any one player) doesn't magically make you the hardest team to play against Signing Guentzel for 7 years isn't the same as signing Kane for 2, so it can't be compared Kane would be a guy you look at if you can't get Guentzel. So I have no idea where you're getting this from. Quote The Rangers lost because the middle of the ice got taken away from them. Kane doesn't play in the middle of the ice, so signing him, no matter how successful he's been in the playoffs in years past on different rosters doesn't just not change the dynamic, it adds to the reason they lost. It ensures that 1/6th of the top-six next spring will, in all likelihood, produce the exact same results we just saw. I'm not interested. Or ... The Rangers lost because they needed one more goal in every game. Kane can help more than whomever they had there this year. That's why I keep saying you think the only way to fix the problem is your way. Well firstly it's not true, and secondly they might not be able to fix it the way you want them to, so they should fix it anyway possible instead of not fixing it at all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 3 minutes ago, Pete said: Yea I'll file this under you're skimming, or strawman. I never said signing Guentzel was a bad thing. I said: Signing him (or any one player) doesn't magically make you the hardest team to play against Signing Guentzel for 7 years isn't the same as signing Kane for 2, so it can't be compared Kane would be a guy you look at if you can't get Guentzel. So I have no idea where you're getting this from. 1. Already answered earlier. My response/claim has never been that signing any one player will magically fix everything. I said then, and I'll say again for clarity: Guentzel won't make them the hardest team to play against—no one player will—but he'll make them harder to play against than Kane will. 2. They're both potential solutions to this teams' scoring problems. That one requires a long-term deal and the other likely not is immaterial to the point. Especially when you know I just said I don't care about potential/possible/maybe problems in the future. I care about what makes this team harder to play against now. I want whoever is more likely to get them through the East next year. If you think that's Kane, fine. I don't. 3. Not me. I'm not interested in any player who exacerbates what I believe to be this teams biggest issue, which is too much of the same thing — highly skilled, relatively slow forwards who play entirely on the outside and aren't willing to fight for the middle of the ice when the ice shrinks every Spring. Quote Or ... The Rangers lost because they needed one more goal in every game. Kane can help more than whomever they had there this year. That's why I keep saying you think the only way to fix the problem is your way. Well firstly it's not true, and secondly they might not be able to fix it the way you want them to, so they should fix it anyway possible instead of not fixing it at all. Sure, you can view it that way. For arguments sake, I'm fine with that as a diagnosis. But I'm still going to come back to where the majority of goals are scored from in this league, especially in the playoffs. Hint: it's no where near the boards. Which takes me right back to my third point above. Does Toffoli or Kane maybe get them an extra goal or two? Sure, maybe, but do they score enough at even strength, or offer any other dynamic to talk me into buying in? Nope. I dont' control this decision. All I can do is read and react, but I'm not going to be gaslit into believing that signing a 35+ aging winger who plays on the perimeter of the ice is a better solution than, for arguments sake, signing a guy who scores the majority of his goals at the net mouth, even if that player has to be contracted near to his 40s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Phil said: 1. Already answered earlier. My response/claim has never been that signing any one player will magically fix everything. I said then, and I'll say again for clarity: Guentzel won't make them the hardest team to play against—no one player will—but he'll make them harder to play against than Kane will. 2. They're both potential solutions to this teams' scoring problems. That one requires a long-term deal and the other likely not is immaterial to the point. Especially when you know I just said I don't care about potential/possible/maybe problems in the future. I care about what makes this team harder to play against now. I want whoever is more likely to get them through the East next year. If you think that's Kane, fine. I don't. 3. Not me. I'm not interested in any player who exacerbates what I believe to be this teams biggest issue, which is too much of the same thing — highly skilled, relatively slow forwards who play entirely on the outside and aren't willing to fight for the middle of the ice when the ice shrinks every Spring. Sure, you can view it that way. For arguments sake, I'm fine with that as a diagnosis. But I'm still going to come back to where the majority of goals are scored from in this league, especially in the playoffs. Hint: it's no where near the boards. Which takes me right back to my third point above. Does Toffoli or Kane maybe get them an extra goal or two? Sure, maybe, but do they score enough at even strength, or offer any other dynamic to talk me into buying in? Nope. I dont' control this decision. All I can do is read and react, but I'm not going to be gaslit into believing that signing a 35+ aging winger who plays on the perimeter of the ice is a better solution than, for arguments sake, signing a guy who scores the majority of his goals at the net mouth, even if that player has to be contracted near to his 40s. I don't understand the problem, you're making your points and I'm making mine, your points don't change my points though. They're just different points. Where we disagree is you would rather sign nobody than sign Kane, which is a really incongruent with your stated goal of winning a cup no matter what. You might not agree with the way the hole gets filled but regardless it's a ridiculous argument to say it's better not to fill the hole at all than fill it with someone you just don't care for. (And let's just assume that every time you throw around "aging" and "Perimeter" I'll say "PPG and ConnSmythe" so we might as well just stop playing the adjective game now.) Not filling the hole is not an option. Edited June 20 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) If they can find a way to sign Guentzel, I'm not entirely opposed. It has long term cap implications, but even if we operate under the assumption that nobody in the core is traded, the thing is the Rangers are going to need talented players in 2 years in a post-Panarin world. Kreider will be 35 with one year left. Guentzel will be going into his age 32 season then and still probably a 30 goal scorer for a few more seasons after that. I consider it pretty likely for him to be a 30 goal scorer for the majority of his contract. He likely wouldn't be untradeable if they had to really move him. There's a good argument to go for him. I still think it's probably not enough to get the forward group to start playing the right way. More than likely, you probably need other major moves at the top to have that kind of effect. Imagine this. Panarin + Goodrow cap could be spent on Guentzel and Bertuzzi. Laf-Zib-Guentzel, Kreider-Trocheck-Bertuzzi. That kind of revamp in the top 6 and the way they play the game in general...I just came Edited June 20 by BrooksBurner 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 45 minutes ago, Br4d said: A little extra is what we tried to do last season. Great regular season and then we got wiped in the ECF because the team that wiped us literally laughs at our skill players hanging by the boards. That’s an exaggeration but I see your point. But yeah… when you have a good team, a little extra is what you try to do. And usually, because good teams don’t have much cap space, it’s all you can do. The transformational deal that everyone seems to be clamoring for probably isn’t out there. The opportunity to offload certain players/contracts probably isn’t out there. There may be a hockey trade but who is to say how that would shake out or if it would make them better. I see the need to get better and understand the assertions from fans. I just don’t see any realism in the how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Just now, Pete said: I don't understand the problem, you're making your points and not making mine, your points don't change my points though. They're just different points. Where we disagree is you would rather sign nobody than sign Kane, which is a really incongruent with your stated goal of winning a cup no matter what. You might not agree with the way the hole gets filled but regardless it's a ridiculous argument to say it's better not to fill the hole at all than fill it with someone you just don't care for. Not selling the hole is not an option. Yes, he ranks quite low on my list. Near the bottom, even. There's a bunch of players I'd rather sign, a bunch more I'd try and trade for, and a few internally I'd look at as last-ditch efforts to drag Kreider and Zibanejad into the fight all before signing Kane. But none of this is "not filling the hole." We disagree on how to fill it, not whether to fill it. Free agents: Reinhart, Arvidsson, Marchessault (all natural RW), Guentzel, Bertuzzi, (listed as LW/RW). Trade: Call relentlessly about Alex Tuch or Ryan Hartman. Internally (all else fails), I'd move a rotation of guys up and just ride whatever small waves you can create until you get to the TDL and reassess. Cuylle, Vesey, Rempe even. Maybe Chytil. He scares the fuck out of me, but he goes to the net and shoots the puck from the slot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Phil said: Yes, he ranks quite low on my list. Near the bottom, even. There's a bunch of players I'd rather sign, a bunch more I'd try and trade for, and a few internally I'd look at as last-ditch efforts to drag Kreider and Zibanejad into the fight all before signing Kane. But none of this is "not filling the hole." We disagree on how to fill it, not whether to fill it. Free agents: Reinhart, Arvidsson, Marchessault (all natural RW), Guentzel, Bertuzzi, (listed as LW/RW). Trade: Call relentlessly about Alex Tuch or Ryan Hartman. Internally (all else fails), I'd move a rotation of guys up and just ride whatever small waves you can create until you get to the TDL and reassess. Cuylle, Vesey, Rempe even. Maybe Chytil. He scares the fuck out of me, but he goes to the net and shoots the puck from the slot. I brought him up earlier, but would you have interest in Cam Atkinson? If Marchessaults size doesn’t effect you, Atkinson is same size. Philly is willing to retain on half his $5.8M cap hit. UFA next summer, so a prove it year. Can probably get him for not a whole lot. May be slightly more given the division rivalry aspect but we’ve made deals with the Flyers before. Hes another guy who, on the cheap, I would be intrigued with for the Zibanejad line. Edited June 20 by RichieNextel305 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 1 hour ago, Phil said: Great. We agree. Now let's discuss what the actual issue is: how do you get better? If your suggestion is to add more soft-skill only, slow, wallflower players, then I'm sorry, but I'm not on board. It's a recipe for repetition. Maybe they'll win another Presidents Trophy. Yay! Maybe you're happy with that. I'm not. I want one trophy, and one trophy only, and I don't care who has to get run the fuck over to get it. Of course I want to see them win it all. Especially when they’re this close. Despite everything, when a team is this close, if you don’t win the Cup, the season is a failure. I just don’t see a practical solution to how everyone seems to want them to get better. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other options. There are many ways to skin a cat. I agree they need some more size. And that they need to be a bit stiffer and more difficult to play against. Not 100% sure on who that player(s) is or if that’s attainable. Its the ridiculously unrealistic shit that gets put up on here bothers me. We aren’t playing NHL 95 on Genesis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 4 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said: I brought him up earlier, but would you have interest in Cam Atkinson? If Marchessaults size doesn’t effect you, Atkinson is same size. Philly is willing to retain on half his $5.8M cap hit. UFA next summer, so a prove it year. Can probably get him for not a whole lot. May be slightly more given the division rivalry aspect but we’ve made deals with the Flyers before. Hes another guy who, on the cheap, I would be intrigued with for the Zibanejad line. On the surface, yes, but I would want to look at his underlying numbers a bit. Top level, it's not a bad idea at all. One year at, around $3 million seems doable. 13 goals last year, 11 at ES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsm7302 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Here's the deal; it's simple. Two ECF appearances in three years. Need a top RW and upgrade Jacob Trouba who cost the team IMMENSELY in this post season. His time has come. We are removing the rudder from the ship if we do that. Add Pat Kane and you've added dynamic talent at RW and a voice who has been there and done it. Let Laf take an A and let another player take the C, preferably Kreider. Like it or not CK. You want to hang in the rafters? Take the C and take us to the promise land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 14 minutes ago, jsm7302 said: Here's the deal; it's simple. Two ECF appearances in three years. Need a top RW and upgrade Jacob Trouba who cost the team IMMENSELY in this post season. His time has come. We are removing the rudder from the ship if we do that. Add Pat Kane and you've added dynamic talent at RW and a voice who has been there and done it. Let Laf take an A and let another player take the C, preferably Kreider. Like it or not CK. You want to hang in the rafters? Take the C and take us to the promise land. As much as I would love to see Trouba off this team, you likely don’t need to remove him to add Kane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 1 hour ago, Phil said: Yes, he ranks quite low on my list. Near the bottom, even. There's a bunch of players I'd rather sign, a bunch more I'd try and trade for, and a few internally I'd look at as last-ditch efforts to drag Kreider and Zibanejad into the fight all before signing Kane. But none of this is "not filling the hole." We disagree on how to fill it, not whether to fill it. Free agents: Reinhart, Arvidsson, Marchessault (all natural RW), Guentzel, Bertuzzi, (listed as LW/RW). Trade: Call relentlessly about Alex Tuch or Ryan Hartman. Internally (all else fails), I'd move a rotation of guys up and just ride whatever small waves you can create until you get to the TDL and reassess. Cuylle, Vesey, Rempe even. Maybe Chytil. He scares the fuck out of me, but he goes to the net and shoots the puck from the slot. It sounded like you wouldn't sign Kane if he were the last man standing, which I felt was ridiculous. I don't think we disagree on how to fill it. But you don't always get what you want, sometimes you just have to upgrade what you have, which in the Rangers case is—nothing. "Cuylle, Vesey, Rempe even. Maybe Chytil." are not serious options for a team trying to win a Cup. Kane is, even if you don't like it, the guy has hardware to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 15 minutes ago, jsm7302 said: Here's the deal; it's simple. Two ECF appearances in three years. Need a top RW and upgrade Jacob Trouba who cost the team IMMENSELY in this post season. His time has come. We are removing the rudder from the ship if we do that. Add Pat Kane and you've added dynamic talent at RW and a voice who has been there and done it. Let Laf take an A and let another player take the C, preferably Kreider. Like it or not CK. You want to hang in the rafters? Take the C and take us to the promise land. You’re not getting rid of Trouba. You can bury him on your 3rd pair though. Its Schneider and Miller on your 2nd pair. Do cut Trouba a little slack… he broke his ankle… came back 26 days later… was markedly limited by that. He shouldn’t have been in the lineup. It only got worse too. But he needs to start on the 3rd pair. Maybe you can move him next year when he only has a year left. Agree on a RW. Not sure it’s Kane. Not advocating for this guy… but no chatter on Patrik Laine is a surprise. 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