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

[Pete]

49 minutes ago, Phil said:

The goal is to get better. And every year, the better teams are bigger, faster, stronger, not older, slower, soft-skill only.

 

I have no doubt Kane would do fine in the regular season, but I have very reason to doubt that the outcome won't meaningfully change in the post season if they don't meaningfully change their composition.

The Boyle narrative gets repeated (shocker, big player likes big players!) but Tampa won 2 Cups with teams averaging 6'1 205. They only had a handful of players like Hedman, Cernak, Ruuta, Maroon who were big boys.

 

Meanwhile we have a 6'3 235 pound guy who skates like the wind and what's he do with that? Nothing. Scoring in the playoffs is a mindset. It's about will.

 

So please don't tell me that a player with 132 points in 136 playoff games including 52 goals doesn't understand how to score in the playoffs. 

 

Should he be a main target? No. Could he be a backup plan? Sure. Is he better than anyone else they've had in that role in recent memory? Yes. 

Edited June 19 by Pete

[RJWantsTheCup]

Edmonton won the last 2 games plain and simple because of McDavid.   Rangers don't have a McDavid.  

[BrooksBurner]

7 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Edmonton won the last 2 games plain and simple because of McDavid.   Rangers don't have a McDavid.  

They’ve got someone paid like McDavid does that count

[RJWantsTheCup]

5 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

They’ve got someone paid like McDavid does that count

Not where it counts.  On the scoresheet is where it matters.

[Sharpshooter]

No one has a McDavid, except Edmonton. lol That guy is a human cheat code. Having someone like that would be nice, but not needed to win a Cup. Get me some guys who can consistently score in the playoffs, or just be consistent in general.

[jsm7302]

59 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

No one has a McDavid, except Edmonton. lol That guy is a human cheat code. Having someone like that would be nice, but not needed to win a Cup. Get me some guys who can consistently score in the playoffs, or just be consistent in general.

His goals the past two games are like video game stuff. Amazing talent to watch.

[Sharpshooter]

I do think Kane and the Rangers will definitely be talking this summer. Whether something gets done, who knows. But, there will be conversation.

[Phil]

6 hours ago, Pete said:

The Boyle narrative gets repeated (shocker, big player likes big players!) but Tampa won 2 Cups with teams averaging 6'1 205. They only had a handful of players like Hedman, Cernak, Ruuta, Maroon who were big boys.

 

Meanwhile we have a 6'3 235 pound guy who skates like the wind and what's he do with that? Nothing. Scoring in the playoffs is a mindset. It's about will.

 

So please don't tell me that a player with 132 points in 136 playoff games including 52 goals doesn't understand how to score in the playoffs. 

 

Should he be a main target? No. Could he be a backup plan? Sure. Is he better than anyone else they've had in that role in recent memory? Yes. 

 

You're missing the point. If Kane was 6'6 I still wouldn't want him. He plays on the outside. Same as Zib. Same as Kreider. Same as Fox. Same as Panarin. Same as Miller. There are TOO MANY wallflowers. I'm not interested in adding more. I want a different dynamic.

[Pete]

27 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

You're missing the point. If Kane was 6'6 I still wouldn't want him. He plays on the outside. Same as Zib. Same as Kreider. Same as Fox. Same as Panarin. Same as Miller. There are TOO MANY wallflowers. I'm not interested in adding more. I want a different dynamic.

And yet despite being perimeter,  quite effective in the playoffs. 

 

I understand wanting to remake the complexion of the team but also understand it's not going to happen in one summer. It's just not. That'll take some contracts getting to the last year or some NMCs to expire, But the idea that they will go back next season with it completely different team could most likely be a reach. 

 

In that event, there's no reason to not sign him for a couple of seasons. If you're going to be a perimeter team then get the best perimeter player and lean into what you are. 

 

It shouldn't be their first plan, but it could be a plan. Because if you think you're going to sign Guentzel and become the hardest team in the NHL to play against, that's just not going to happen.

[BrooksBurner]

18 minutes ago, Pete said:

And yet despite being perimeter,  quite effective in the playoffs. 

 

I understand wanting to remake the complexion of the team but also understand it's not going to happen in one summer. It's just not. That'll take some contracts getting to the last year or some NMCs to expire, But the idea that they will go back next season with it completely different team could most likely be a reach. 

 

In that event, there's no reason to not sign him for a couple of seasons. If you're going to be a perimeter team then get the best perimeter player and lean into what you are. 

 

It shouldn't be their first plan, but it could be a plan. Because if you think you're going to sign Guentzel and become the hardest team in the NHL to play against, that's just not going to happen.

Signing Kane because a makeover can’t be completed in one summer is like eating a bag of chips on the first day of a diet. Not really a step in the right direction

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Signing Kane because a makeover can’t be completed in one summer is like eating a bag of chips on the first day of a diet. Not really a step in the right direction

I'm sure that's how you view it, and I'm sure others may view it as switching from a fatty rib eye to a leaner cut like a filet mignon, and eventually maybe on the road to no red meat at all. 

 

But most of the time when you try cut anything out of your diet cold turkey you wind up going right back to it at some point. It's better to wean off gradually, and when you indulge make smarter choices. 

[BrooksBurner]

51 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm sure that's how you view it, and I'm sure others may view it as switching from a fatty rib eye to a leaner cut like a filet mignon, and eventually maybe on the road to no red meat at all. 

 

But most of the time when you try cut anything out of your diet cold turkey you wind up going right back to it at some point. It's better to wean off gradually, and when you indulge make smarter choices. 

Your analogy aligns well with what they should do, but it doesn’t compute with signing Kane. Signing Kane is more like adding a tablespoon of butter on top of the ribeye and saying “Screw it, I’m eating ribeye already so adding butter doesn’t matter”.

 

 

[Pete]

33 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Your analogy aligns well with what they should do, but it doesn’t compute with signing Kane. Signing Kane is more like adding a tablespoon of butter on top of the ribeye and saying “Screw it, I’m eating ribeye already so adding butter doesn’t matter”.

 

 

Eh. Kane is still red meat (skill not snarl) but a better cut than what they've trotted out there in recent memory. 

 

Shouldn't be their first or only plan but when you're shopping in free agency sometimes it doesn't work with Plan A B or C so you have to take BPA. They could do much worse, like Blake Wheeler. 

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Your analogy aligns well with what they should do, but it doesn’t compute with signing Kane. Signing Kane is more like adding a tablespoon of butter on top of the ribeye and saying “Screw it, I’m eating ribeye already so adding butter doesn’t matter”.

 

 

Kane is more than butter on a ribeye… even at this point.

 

And by the way… you don’t order a filet in any restaurant. Ever.

 

You want a ribeye. Or a porterhouse (never a T-Bone). Don’t get conned into a tomahawk.

And if it’s on the menu… hanger steak. 
 

 

[BrooksBurner]

41 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Kane is more than butter on a ribeye… even at this point.

 

And by the way… you don’t order a filet in any restaurant. Ever.

 

You want a ribeye. Or a porterhouse (never a T-Bone). Don’t get conned into a tomahawk.

And if it’s on the menu… hanger steak. 
 

 

And the Rangers are more tofu than steak but let’s not be technical here

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

And the Rangers are more tofu than steak but let’s not be technical here

You always have the choice to dine elsewhere.

[RangersIn7]

16 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

And the Rangers are more tofu than steak but let’s not be technical here

Tofu never lasts that long brother. 

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

You always have the choice to dine elsewhere.

I’ve been a customer for decades. The chef will update the menu at some point. Do you like tofu?

[Pete]

38 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I’ve been a customer for decades. The chef will update the menu at some point. Do you like tofu?

I understand that when you dine at the chefs table, you eat what's served because you're there for the experience. 

 

If you dislike the cuisine and the experience, and nothings brings you joy but getting what you want exactly when you want it...you might be in the wrong restaurant. Burger King is "Your Way Right Away"...don't eat at Per Se if you want BK.

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

I understand that when you dine at the chefs table, you eat what's served because you're there for the experience. 

 

If you dislike the cuisine and the experience, and nothings brings you joy but getting what you want exactly when you want it...you might be in the wrong restaurant. Burger King is "Your Way Right Away"...don't eat at Per Se if you want BK.

 

I enjoy the cuisine, but there's just no dessert.

 

I figured you were a tofu guy.

[Pete]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

 

I enjoy the cuisine, but there's just no dessert.

 

I figured you were a tofu guy.

I don't eat red meat, but feel like you love a good tube steak at least once a week.

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

I’ve been a customer for decades. The chef will update the menu at some point. Do you like tofu?

No

Id rather eat out of the trash.

I can’t tell you how many vegans I know that don’t like tofu.

 

We haven’t been being served tofu. 

[RangersIn7]

15 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't eat red meat, but feel like you love a good tube steak at least once a week.

He only likes it if it’s smothered in underwear.

 

He likes hambones too… especially if they are of the “Otherguys” variety. 

[Phil]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

And yet despite being perimeter,  quite effective in the playoffs. 

 

I understand wanting to remake the complexion of the team but also understand it's not going to happen in one summer. It's just not. That'll take some contracts getting to the last year or some NMCs to expire, But the idea that they will go back next season with it completely different team could most likely be a reach. 

 

In that event, there's no reason to not sign him for a couple of seasons. If you're going to be a perimeter team then get the best perimeter player and lean into what you are. 

 

It shouldn't be their first plan, but it could be a plan. Because if you think you're going to sign Guentzel and become the hardest team in the NHL to play against, that's just not going to happen.

 

Then you understand why I don't want this player (or any other like him).

 

I'm not asking them to fix every problem in one fell swoop. I'm asking them to try, and that starts by not adding to the problem.

 

Guentzel won't make them the hardest team to play against, but he'll make them harder. Kane won't.

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Then you understand why I don't want this player (or any other like him).

 

I'm not asking them to fix every problem in one fell swoop. I'm asking them to try, and that starts by not adding to the problem.

 

Guentzel won't make them the hardest team to play against, but he'll make them harder. Kane won't.

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.