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

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

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.

"Get bigger!" Sign guy who's 5'8" 176

[RangersIn7]

Just now, Pete said:

"Get bigger!" Sign guy who's 5'8" 176

He plays with grit!

[RichieNextel305]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

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.

My question would be this: why Atkinson and not Kane?

 

FWIW, I’d be open to either under the right circumstances.

[Phil]

21 minutes ago, Pete said:

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.

 

I mean, he's low on my list. I really don't have much interest at all. I'm not saying no, but I'm saying yes to a lot of other scenarios well before I go to him, and I doubt he's going to sit around all summer waiting for the chance.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

My question would be this: why Atkinson and not Kane?

 

FWIW, I’d be open to either under the right circumstances.

 

For two reasons:

 

1. Atkinsson isn't slower than molasses.

2. He's fast, tenacious, and goes RIGHT to the net on every shift. Perfect combination for what's needed to drag 20+93 into the middle of the ice, or force them to make plays there.

[RichieNextel305]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, he's low on my list. I really don't have much interest at all. I'm not saying no, but I'm saying yes to a lot of other scenarios well before I go to him, and I doubt he's going to sit around all summer waiting for the chance.

I don’t anticipate there being a lot of song and dance on 7/1. Trades aside, I think a lot of dominos will fall quickly out of the gate. There seems to be a lot of momentum around the league, and with the extremely short period of time from the Finals to Draft to Free Agency, I think a lot will happen in the next 10-14 days or so.

[Phil]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

"Get bigger!" Sign guy who's 5'8" 176

 

For the millionth time, it's not purely about size. It's about size and skill. Atkinsson plays the game in the middle of the ice. He pays the price to go to the net. He's small, but doesn't play small. You're not going to have any trouble getting him to play in the middle of the ice. That's entirely the point I'm making with all of this. In an ideal world, yes, I'd have a team of Lindros' but that's not plausible, so it's about mentality more than pure physical attributes. Small players are OK if they play big. MSL was like this, too.

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I don’t anticipate there being a lot of song and dance on 7/1. Trades aside, I think a lot of dominos will fall quickly out of the gate. There seems to be a lot of momentum around the league, and with the extremely short period of time from the Finals to Draft to Free Agency, I think a lot will happen in the next 10-14 days or so.

 

OK, maybe, but again, he's low on my list. I'm exploring all sorts of roads before I opt for him, so why would he wait around hoping that I'll say yes (if I were running the team)? He's like Roslovic in that respect. I see him as one of the last chairs available, if all other chairs are sat in. He's not the one I'm racing for.

[BrooksBurner]

If the best option they are reduced to this summer is to add Kane with no other real changes, they might as well just start turning the page to the next window and letting Othmann or Berard play up the lineup instead. At least the team will learn something new, instead of a repeat of an entirely predictable and unceremonious playoff exit.

[RangersIn7]

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

For the millionth time, it's not purely about size. It's about size and skill. Atkinsson plays the game in the middle of the ice. He pays the price to go to the net. He's small, but doesn't play small. You're not going to have any trouble getting him to play in the middle of the ice. That's entirely the point I'm making with all of this. In an ideal world, yes, I'd have a team of Lindros' but that's not plausible, so it's about mentality more than pure physical attributes. Small players are OK if they play big. MSL was like this, too.

No

Youre 100% correct in that it isn’t. It’s about mentality and style of play too.

 

But that notwithstanding, how many 5’8” 176 lb guys do the everyone’s darling Florida Panthers have playing in their top-6?

 

Atkinson probably isn’t your answer there. Maybe lower in the lineup though 

[Pete]

58 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, he's low on my list. I really don't have much interest at all. I'm not saying no, but I'm saying yes to a lot of other scenarios well before I go to him, and I doubt he's going to sit around all summer waiting for the chance.

Fair enough. I don't think he's #1 on anyone's shopping list. I'm just more open to it than you are.

[Pete]

54 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

For the millionth time, it's not purely about size. It's about size and skill. Atkinsson plays the game in the middle of the ice. He pays the price to go to the net. He's small, but doesn't play small. You're not going to have any trouble getting him to play in the middle of the ice. That's entirely the point I'm making with all of this. In an ideal world, yes, I'd have a team of Lindros' but that's not plausible, so it's about mentality more than pure physical attributes. Small players are OK if they play big. MSL was like this, too.

I mean it's a great theory, but if the goal is to beat Florida (to me, that's not the goal), you can have guys who want to get to the net but it really doesn't matter if they other team is bigger and stronger and doesn't let you get to the middle.

[Pete]

48 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

If the best option they are reduced to this summer is to add Kane with no other real changes, they might as well just start turning the page to the next window and letting Othmann or Berard play up the lineup instead. At least the team will learn something new, instead of a repeat of an entirely predictable and unceremonious playoff exit.

I'd agree if it wasn't the last year of Igor's contract.

 

The counterargument is that despite whatever numbers anyone can post, the scoreboard says most nights they needed one goal. Get a guy who can get you a goal that Kakko, Roslovic, Wennberg, etc couldn't get you.

 

Playing out next season changes nothing in the grand scheme. Make your moves with players having one less year on deals. I'm sure it's easier to sell Panarin and another team on one year wherever you want to try and trade him than 2.

[Phil]

24 minutes ago, Pete said:

Fair enough. I don't think he's #1 on anyone's shopping list. I'm just more open to it than you are.

 

Yup, and that's totally OK. It's also entirely possible he works. You're not wrong that what they needed was a goal or two. It'd have gotten them back into a bunch of games. I'm just really adverse to playing back into that comeback kids style if there's alternative paths to take (and there are). I want to be the one causing the reaction, not the one always reacting to the play pushing into the Rangers' end.

 

21 minutes ago, Pete said:

I mean it's a great theory, but if the goal is to beat Florida (to me, that's not the goal), you can have guys who want to get to the net but it really doesn't matter if they other team is bigger and stronger and doesn't let you get to the middle.

 

Right, but that's exactly why I want guys who are predisposed to trying. Ones you don't have to yank on the ear to force them to try. It's why I'm so adverse to Kane — his game just isn't designed for that, and you know they'll put him with Kreider and Zibanejad. It'll be spectacular to watch all regular season, building up hope, and then we'll get to April/May/June and I just envision them getting completely snuffed out and forced to the same results Florida produced — low event, low danger hockey, every shift, every time they're on the ice at ES.

[RangersIn7]

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

I mean it's a great theory, but if the goal is to beat Florida (to me, that's not the goal), you can have guys who want to get to the net but it really doesn't matter if they other team is bigger and stronger and doesn't let you get to the middle.

Yup.

 

It’s 100% guaranteed that this next year we will have to go through Florida.

So we should make a roster that can beat them.

No matter how infeasible that may be.

 

They are 100% the team we have to beat and structure ourselves to beat.

 

Just like NJ was that team a year ago.

 

Thats how it’s playing out fellas.

You heard it here first.

Just lay your money down.

 

We can just discard Trouba’s contract.

We can flip Mika easily. For an upgrade too. They’ll get back one of the 7-10 centers in the league that are actually better than him. It wont carry any cap issues either. It’ll be a straight 1 for 1 deal. We won’t have to give any one else anything else to do that deal. 

And we can trade Panarin too… and the player they get back… he’ll be better than 50 goals and 120 points.

I was thinking prime Brett Hull. 

 

Lets everyone stop smoking fentanyl please.

Turn your bodies north.

And take the long walk back to reality.

 

BTW… when you get there, you’ll see things are pretty fucking good.

Maybe not ideal.

Maybe it doesn’t play out in the end in the results you want.

But it’s pretty good and it gives you a seriously viable fucking chance. 

[Pete]

37 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yup, and that's totally OK. It's also entirely possible he works. You're not wrong that what they needed was a goal or two. It'd have gotten them back into a bunch of games. I'm just really adverse to playing back into that comeback kids style if there's alternative paths to take (and there are). I want to be the one causing the reaction, not the one always reacting to the play pushing into the Rangers' end.

 

 

Right, but that's exactly why I want guys who are predisposed to trying. Ones you don't have to yank on the ear to force them to try. It's why I'm so adverse to Kane — his game just isn't designed for that, and you know they'll put him with Kreider and Zibanejad. It'll be spectacular to watch all regular season, building up hope, and then we'll get to April/May/June and I just envision them getting completely snuffed out and forced to the same results Florida produced — low event, low danger hockey, every shift, every time they're on the ice at ES.

I think you need to check Kane's EDGE data. He takes more shots and scores more goals from the middle of the ice than you give him credit for. It's where a majority of them come from. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I'd agree if it wasn't the last year of Igor's contract.

 

The counterargument is that despite whatever numbers anyone can post, the scoreboard says most nights they needed one goal. Get a guy who can get you a goal that Kakko, Roslovic, Wennberg, etc couldn't get you.

 

Playing out next season changes nothing in the grand scheme. Make your moves with players having one less year on deals. I'm sure it's easier to sell Panarin and another team on one year wherever you want to try and trade him than 2.

 

If it's the last year of Igor he shouldn't be on the team past this summer. Drury should be fired if Igor walks to UFA.

[RangersIn7]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

I think you need to check Kane's EDGE data. He takes more shots and scores more goals from the middle of the ice than you give him credit for. It's where a majority of them come from. 

Two things with Kane.

 

1) He is not, nor has he ever been, a “perimeter” player.

2) He isn’t slow either.

 

[RangersIn7]

The guys people think would transform this team…

 

Guess what… there’s like 6 of them in the league.

Theyre all under long-term contracts. 
For big money.

They aren’t about to be traded

And if you could broker a deal for that guy… the pieces you’d send out of town, that would potentially do more harm than good to your roster.

 

Let’s find a good RW who can play on the top line and help Mika not have to always lug the puck while Kreider does not enough.

 

Break up the bromance

 

Get a bit more scoring from the bottom-6.

That’s a huge one. They need better than basically neutral hockey from them. 
 

 

Improve the D.

 

Get bigger in some spots. 

 
And hopefully you get a break in the playoffs with a good draw and key guys being healthy and being able to draw good matchups.

 

You can’t count on luck. Nor should you.

But you still need it. 

[Phil]

24 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

The guys people think would transform this team…

 

Guess what… there’s like 6 of them in the league.

Theyre all under long-term contracts. 
For big money.

They aren’t about to be traded

And if you could broker a deal for that guy… the pieces you’d send out of town, that would potentially do more harm than good to your roster.

 

Let’s find a good RW who can play on the top line and help Mika not have to always lug the puck while Kreider does not enough.

 

Break up the bromance

 

Get a bit more scoring from the bottom-6.

That’s a huge one. They need better than basically neutral hockey from them. 
 

 

Improve the D.

 

Get bigger in some spots. 

 
And hopefully you get a break in the playoffs with a good draw and key guys being healthy and being able to draw good matchups.

 

You can’t count on luck. Nor should you.

But you still need it. 

 

Assumptions assumptions, everywhere.

 

And again, you're fighting a straw man. I don't know who "people" is here you're referring to, but given how active I've been in this thread recently, I'm going to assume it's a passing shot at me, so I'll reiterate to you the same way I have anyone else misrepresenting what I'm asking for:

 

I'm not asking for a savior. I'm asking for a different dynamic to add to what is already here. The names I've talked about via free agency won't "potentially do more harm than good to your roster," and neither would the trade targets. I've talked about three guys here: Jeannot, Hartman, and Tuch. I'll throw in a fourth option: Ross Colton, who just made Seravalli's Trade Board.

 

Send them Kakko. One-for-one. Colton centers the third line to give the team more prickishness and back fill what they lost in Goodrow. Kakko gives COL a middle-six winger they can trust who can play up in their lineup while they figure out Nichushkin long-term while gaining $1.5M~ in cap room.

 

Or is all of a sudden trading a fifth-year mediocre winger going to "do more harm than good?" Before you answer, maybe read what I read two or three times so you don't go attacking another straw man.

[Pete]

59 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

If it's the last year of Igor he shouldn't be on the team past this summer. Drury should be fired if Igor walks to UFA.

Yea, this kind of talk I just tune out. I'm not doing hyperbole this summer. 

 

That said, there's plenty of time to extend him, doesn't need to be done July 1st. Plenty of time to see how the season goes. He wants to sign now because he wants a big payday, if he slumps next year like he did this year that's going to cut into his bag. Kreider was about to be traded on deadline day before he signed his deal. 

 

The overarching point is there's no reason to be force feeding rookies into the lineup "just to see".

Edited June 20 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

12 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yea, this kind of talk I just tune out. I'm not doing hyperbole this summer. 

 

That said, there's plenty of time to extend him, doesn't need to be done July 1st. Plenty of time to see how the season goes. He wants to sign now because he wants a big payday, if he slumps next year like he did this year that's going to cut into his bag. Kreider was about to be traded on deadline day before he signed his deal. 

 

The overarching point is there's no reason to be force feeding rookies into the lineup "just to see".

Hyperbole? You can’t just let your best player leave the house for nothing. That would be terrible roster management.

 

Kreider was playing on a young, bubble team and nobody expected playoffs going into the year. It made sense to trade him for pieces at the deadline if they wanted to. Shesterkin is the entire reason this team is competitive when it matters. They are not trading him midseason if he is here without an extension. You know this.

 

The overarching point is Kane doesn’t make the kind of difference that is required. If that’s the best they can do this summer, they’re better off getting the ball rolling on the next window.

[RangersIn7]

45 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Assumptions assumptions, everywhere.

 

And again, you're fighting a straw man. I don't know who "people" is here you're referring to, but given how active I've been in this thread recently, I'm going to assume it's a passing shot at me, so I'll reiterate to you the same way I have anyone else misrepresenting what I'm asking for:

 

I'm not asking for a savior. I'm asking for a different dynamic to add to what is already here. The names I've talked about via free agency won't "potentially do more harm than good to your roster," and neither would the trade targets. I've talked about three guys here: Jeannot, Hartman, and Tuch. I'll throw in a fourth option: Ross Colton, who just made Seravalli's Trade Board.

 

Send them Kakko. One-for-one. Colton centers the third line to give the team more prickishness and back fill what they lost in Goodrow. Kakko gives COL a middle-six winger they can trust who can play up in their lineup while they figure out Nichushkin long-term while gaining $1.5M~ in cap room.

 

Or is all of a sudden trading a fifth-year mediocre winger going to "do more harm than good?" Before you answer, maybe read what I read two or three times so you don't go attacking another straw man.

That’s a general “you” Phil.

Sorry.

 

I have no idea what a straw man is either. 

 

Not directing anything at you specifically.

Sincerely.

Im reading everything from everyone in all threads… they’re kind of all mashing together. 

And I’ve read all your posts too, and feel your take is fair and good. 

 

Ive mentioned Hartman myself. As have a few others. And I think he’s a good fit. More secondary than primary… tweener add maybe. 

 

I love the idea of Alex Tuch. That’s perfect.

Thats a primary move. 

But I can’t believe Buffalo is trading him. And not to us especially. 
He’d almost certainly cost pieces off the 

roster that could hurt them in other places.

So who are you pulling off the roster, and how?

 

As for Colton… that’s plausible. 

Im not running to give up Kakko, but that’s a hockey trade I’d consider making.
But would Sakic wanna do that? 

And that’s a secondary move. Makes you slightly better. But not to the degree you need. 
 

Is it 2 smaller moves? 1 bigger and a small?

 

Plenty of options.

 

[Phil]

45 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

That’s a general “you” Phil.

Sorry.

 

I have no idea what a straw man is either. 

 

Not directing anything at you specifically.

Sincerely.

Im reading everything from everyone in all threads… they’re kind of all mashing together. 

And I’ve read all your posts too, and feel your take is fair and good. 

 

Ive mentioned Hartman myself. As have a few others. And I think he’s a good fit. More secondary than primary… tweener add maybe. 

 

I love the idea of Alex Tuch. That’s perfect.

Thats a primary move. 

But I can’t believe Buffalo is trading him. And not to us especially. 
He’d almost certainly cost pieces off the 

roster that could hurt them in other places.

So who are you pulling off the roster, and how?

 

I have no idea what it would take to get Tuch or Hartman. I know that Kevyn Adams has said publicly that he doesn't want to trade Tuch, but GMs say shit like this all the time and then immediately turn around and trade the player anyway. Whats his face in Calgary literally just said something about Markstrom not requesting a trade or whatever the day before he traded him to New Jersey. PK Subbaan was "not being actively shopped" like an hour before he was traded to Nashville. Anything can happen.

 

All I'm saying is if I'm Drury, I'm calling. Relentlessly.

 

Quote

As for Colton… that’s plausible. 

Im not running to give up Kakko, but that’s a hockey trade I’d consider making.
But would Sakic wanna do that? 

And that’s a secondary move. Makes you slightly better. But not to the degree you need. 
 

Is it 2 smaller moves? 1 bigger and a small?

 

Plenty of options.

 

Again, I have no idea. I'm just throwing shit against a wall as a fan. I can see logic in a Kakko-for-Colton deal based on numerous factors.

 

From COL perspective:

1. Two fellow countrymen in Rantanen and Lehkonen
2. COL gains cap space they probably need to re-sign Mittelstadt and others, albeit incremental
3. COL gains a trustworthy winger to back fill the Nichushkin void while they figure out what the future is with him
4. COL is an analytics-heavy FO. Kakko's underlying numbers are all very positive. They might believe they can unleash more.

 

From NYR perspective:

1. Colton is a prick who makes you slightly better on paper, but plays a hard game designed for the playoffs.
2. The org apparently has long-term reservations with Chytil (per Mercogliano) — rigthfully — and could be in the market for a center this summer.
3. It would break up the monotony of the first three lines. Right now, with Zib/Tro/Chytil as their centers, you're basically stuck creating a third line that's always going to be a facsimile of the first two lines. Soft skill only takes you so far. Brooks has been pounding the drum for a classic checking line for years. I'm with him on that. Colton helps there at the position you want to start with — center.

[Rangers1994]

The Rangers may be better off signing either Reinhart or Stamkos.  Size, skill, leadership, and strength.