siddious Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 On 6/18/2024 at 1:58 PM, Albatrosss said: Trouba, Lindgren You said our top players lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 3 hours ago, siddious said: You said our top players lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Quote 2. There are, however, multiple indications that Kaapo Kakko’s one-year, $2.4 million deal signed a couple of weeks ago was in fact a trade proxy, with the Blueshirts aggressively shopping the 23-year-old Finn. This is sort of a sell-low scenario but sources report that Drury is also attempting to use Kakko in conjunction with the club’s own 30th-overall selection to move up in the first round. https://nypost.com/2024/06/24/sports/rangers-dont-appear-set-to-move-on-from-jacob-trouba/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 It has to be a sign and trade. I know you look at Laf and you want to be patient, but it's an apples and oranges comparison right now. If Kakko goes somewhere and is better, then fine, but I don't think it's a regrettable loss. The 30th pick is whatever, so I think it's a decent package along with Kakko to get something. I'll still be annoyed they didn't trade it at the deadline for winger help, but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) I actually liked the Kakko for Colton idea. Colton adds meanness and can score on par with Kakko. Wonder if Colorado would meet us in the middle and retain a bit if we added a pick in. I’d also do my best if you can do anything, anything to get out of the Chytil contract. I just feel so uneasy about going into a season with big expectations with such a question mark at 3C. Edited June 24 by RichieNextel305 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Elliotte nailed this a few days ago. It was an easy piece of business to lock in his number, and if he winds up on the team in September both parties will be fine with it and if he's on another team in September both parties will be fine with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 I've been a believer in this kid since he got here, and I really feel like we're kinda caught in the middle this off season; I really hate to give up on a guy that came here with so much promise, but the proof on the ice hasn't really showed a whole lot yet. I was thinking this past season was going to be his breakout year, since he showed some flashes the season before where he was making some strides. It ends up being Laff's breakout year....fine!! At this point, the one year "show me" deal can go either way; I think it's 50/50 on whether he's a Ranger this season. If we do end up trading him, I hope we can get some kind of value for him. I just don't see how it could benefit us dealing a guy at his low point. He's also a RW, and resonsible one, defensively. We need RW's, and he's not killing us on that 3rd line. Do I wish he had more of a mean streak, and could be more useful as a 3rd line player? Yes.... I'm really trying to be patient with him, since he just turned 23, but at what point do you just say "fuck it! This kid ain't everything he was cracked up to be!". Have we hit that point? ...at 23 years old?? I dunno fellas...really, I just don't know where to stand on this kid right now. He had a fucking shitty year, and the injury really didn't help him at all. But I didn't see anything that made me think this coming year will be any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 23 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said: It has to be a sign and trade. I know you look at Laf and you want to be patient, but it's an apples and oranges comparison right now. If Kakko goes somewhere and is better, then fine, but I don't think it's a regrettable loss. The 30th pick is whatever, so I think it's a decent package along with Kakko to get something. I'll still be annoyed they didn't trade it at the deadline for winger help, but whatever. Thing is, the quote is explicit that they want to use Kakko + 1st to move up in the first round. It's not for a sign-and-trade, it's to pick an 18 year old in the draft. I guess the most analogous trade would be the Dach or the Romanov deals. As a refresher - a 22 year old Romanov and a third got the 13th overall pick in 22. That 13th overall was flipped - with the 66th, for Dach. If the Rangers are packaging Kakko and #30, I have to assume they're targeting a top-15 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, LindG1000 said: Thing is, the quote is explicit that they want to use Kakko + 1st to move up in the first round. It's not for a sign-and-trade, it's to pick an 18 year old in the draft. I guess the most analogous trade would be the Dach or the Romanov deals. As a refresher - a 22 year old Romanov and a third got the 13th overall pick in 22. That 13th overall was flipped - with the 66th, for Dach. If the Rangers are packaging Kakko and #30, I have to assume they're targeting a top-15 pick. Could be, yeah. Plus, ownership (Dolan) wants the Rangers taking the stage at the Sphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, Sharpshooter said: Could be, yeah. Plus, ownership (Dolan) wants the Rangers taking the stage at the Sphere. Honestly....to me, this is curious. Playing this out a little...the Rangers will not draft a LW. I'd guess they'd draft a right-shot D, and I'd definitely guess they'd want a C. Where they're already sitting, they could just draft Dean Letourneau, who is a 6'7, 210lb strong skating C committed to BC, but was playing in U18 AAA and not in the NTDP. They might get lucky and have Cole Beaudin fall to them, but that feels less and less likely by the day. EJ Emery would be there too, I think. If they're moving up, I'd guess they're targeting Iginla's kid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 I saw something that said several teams were looking to trade down in the draft. I can't remember where or I would share. I wonder if we're about to see a wink-wink transaction with San Jose following up that Goodrow waiver claim. San Jose's 2nd 1st round pick is sitting at 14. A framework of Kakko + 30th for 14th wouldn't be terribly surprising. I think the value tilts San Jose's side and that's where the wink-wink comes in. If it's Kakko + 30 for like Nashville's 22, consider me very against that idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Kakko is a known quantity at this point, whether we want to admit it or not. The Rangers should be looking to move him for an unknown quantity with a higher ceiling. And I get that he might turn into something better somewhere else but that's basically horse feathers to us because he's very unlikely to do it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 I just read the entire article, seems more like a Larry promoting his own thought process rather than the organizations. Speaking specifically about a Trouba buyout he says Trouba was hindered by the injury and it wasn't his decision to come back from IR, it was Drury's and it wasn't his decision to play over Jones,it was Lavvy. Well no shit Larry, But how does it change the fact that he's rapidly declining and he's going to make 8 million to be on the third pair? Why defend the player so hard? I'm also not seeing a world where they trade Kakko for a pick who won't help for 3 years, It's not even like you're freeing enough cap to make a significant move. Unless the idea is to use Goody+Kakko money on Kane, maybe they are high on Bedard or Othmann playing 3RW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, Pete said: I just read the entire article, seems more like a Larry promoting his own thought process rather than the organizations. Speaking specifically about a Trouba buyout he says Trouba was hindered by the injury and it wasn't his decision to come back from IR, it was Drury's and it wasn't his decision to play over Jones,it was Lavvy. Well no shit Larry, But how does it change the fact that he's rapidly declining and he's going to make 8 million to be on the third pair? Why defend the player so hard? I'm also not seeing a world where they trade Kakko for a pick who won't help for 3 years, It's not even like you're freeing enough cap to make a significant move. Unless the idea is to use Goody+Kakko money on Kane, maybe they are high on Bedard or Othmann playing 3RW. I think that's probably right, and/or they fully intend to sign a free agent or two. Kane +1, basically. My guess on Kane is $6M AAV, which is literally Goodrow+Kakko. Then you sign whoever is willing to come in near league minimum to back fill 3RW, which I think is entirely reasonable. That player is probably going to give you roughly the same output you could have expected of Kakko, unless you though Kakko was primed for some breakout, or was the solution to RW1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 minutes ago, Phil said: I think that's probably right, and/or they fully intend to sign a free agent or two. Kane +1, basically. My guess on Kane is $6M AAV, which is literally Goodrow+Kakko. Then you sign whoever is willing to come in near league minimum to back fill 3RW, which I think is entirely reasonable. That player is probably going to give you roughly the same output you could have expected of Kakko, unless you though Kakko was primed for some breakout, or was the solution to RW1. I think we're at the point where if Kakko isn't the RW2 solution (let's call Panarin-Trocheck-Laf line 1), then he's got to be moved for an upgrade elsewhere and that feels fair. But to package him to move up in the draft feels weird to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, Phil said: I think that's probably right, and/or they fully intend to sign a free agent or two. Kane +1, basically. My guess on Kane is $6M AAV, which is literally Goodrow+Kakko. Then you sign whoever is willing to come in near league minimum to back fill 3RW, which I think is entirely reasonable. That player is probably going to give you roughly the same output you could have expected of Kakko, unless you though Kakko was primed for some breakout, or was the solution to RW1. My feelings on Kakko have always been that if you can make the team better by trading him than you do it. I don't know that trading him for a draft pick makes the team better. I don't care if he stays or goes, but if he goes it needs to be part of a big picture improvement and if he stays then I have no issue with a player who makes what he makes and gives you what he gives you on the third line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 9 minutes ago, LindG1000 said: I think we're at the point where if Kakko isn't the RW2 solution (let's call Panarin-Trocheck-Laf line 1), then he's got to be moved for an upgrade elsewhere and that feels fair. But to package him to move up in the draft feels weird to me. In a vacuum, yes, because whoever they draft is likely 2–3 years away from an NHL roster, but it makes total sense if you view it mathematically. Goodrow + Kakko is a little over $6 million in cap room, assuming Kakko gets moved in a deal with basically no money coming back (draft pick). That's probably the money they use to sign someone like Kane and it's break even. Whatever room they have right now they can still use to address anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, Phil said: In a vacuum, yes, because whoever they draft is likely 2–3 years away from an NHL roster, but it makes total sense if you view it mathematically. Goodrow + Kakko is a little over $6 million in cap room, assuming Kakko gets moved in a deal with basically no money coming back (draft pick). That's probably the money they use to sign someone like Kane and it's break even. Whatever room they have right now they can still use to address anything else. It still doesn't, IMO. I don't think moving Kakko is imperative to clear space. 13m should be enough for Lindgren, Kane, Schneider, 13f. Getting to 15.3M and now having to fill 3RW as well - sure, it saves a little space. I still don't like the idea of getting little to nothing back for Goodrow and then Kakko. Maybe I'm a little out of it here, but I feel that Kakko and our 1st should get us more than marginal cap space and future hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) With Kakko out for a better 1st round pick, Schneider at 2.1, Lindgren at 4.5, and Jones at 3LD, the Rangers would have 7.8 million to fill 2 top 9 RW spots. Drury's thought process might be that he wants Berard or Othmann to get a crack on the 3rd line, in which case, that would leave a hair under $7 million. Kane at 6 leaves a little room for a deadline move or two. Edited June 24 by BrooksBurner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, LindG1000 said: It still doesn't, IMO. I don't think moving Kakko is imperative to clear space. 13m should be enough for Lindgren, Kane, Schneider, 13f. Getting to 15.3M and now having to fill 3RW as well - sure, it saves a little space. I still don't like the idea of getting little to nothing back for Goodrow and then Kakko. Maybe I'm a little out of it here, but I feel that Kakko and our 1st should get us more than marginal cap space and future hope. OK, crazy idea, then: Kakko + 30 for McGroarty + 2nd? McGroarty makes the team right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, Phil said: OK, crazy idea, then: Kakko + 30 for McGroarty + 2nd? McGroarty makes the team right away. That satisfies my thinking, though - I see Kakko as a strong fit in Winnipeg, McGroarty as a strong fit on our third line, pick swap is what is and I'd guess Winnipeg isn't thrilled about that, but that's the sort of thinking I'm looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, Phil said: OK, crazy idea, then: Kakko + 30 for McGroarty + 2nd? McGroarty makes the team right away. I would do this yesterday, but I do have a reservation about it that I didn't think of yesterday when I was talking about it. That reservation being what message does it send to Berard and Othmann putting work in at Hartford, being leapfrogged by an unproven prospect outside the org getting handed a guarantee. Bringing in competition for a spot is fantastic, but the guarantee part is what is a bit irksome. Berard in particular has probably earned a legitimate look, or chance to make the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 7 minutes ago, Phil said: OK, crazy idea, then: Kakko + 30 for McGroarty + 2nd? McGroarty makes the team right away. That's a good one. Not even sure I need the 2nd rounder back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, Pete said: That's a good one. Not even sure I need the 2nd rounder back. I don't either, but they'll probably push for it since they don't have a 2nd rounder for the next three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Does anyone think a team in need of reaching the cap floor would take a chance on Chytil? I personally don’t. 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