Pete Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, Phil said: Landed nothing, really. And there’s a double digit AAV goalie contract coming next. It's not on Drury. It's on Trouba, Overhardt, and Brooks. Actually, what lies with Drury was maneuvering around contracts to move Goodrow and Trouba and "make the room uncomfortable", which is what fans wanted, and probably means UFA's are sketchy about coming here. Now those same fans see what that looks like and they're complaining about it. Edited July 31 by Pete 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 30 minutes ago, Br4d said: We're going to run into a Lightning or Panther type opponent before the finals. That's where we faltered in the last two strong seasons. Somehow, someway the Rangers need to become better at 5v5. Otherwise it will all end again because we can't do the one thing well that all SCF teams do well. A lot of this is forecheck and puck pressure, which we will fix to some extent by having guys like Sam Carrick, Brett Berard, Chytil, and Cuylle (and depending on how the dominoes fall, one of Kakko/Smith) more active in the bottom 6.. A good deal of our 5v5 issues against Florida were in the transition game, which we have not fixed, and we are very much relying on Trouba to be smarter, Jones to be better than Gus, Fox to stay healthy, and Miller to take the next step. I think those ALL need to happen to feel like we can be sitting here at the end of February saying we don't need to move for a top 4 D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 12 minutes ago, Pete said: You'd be betting wrong. It's not happenning. He's not waiving, and his agent already sowed the seeds of "you're not trading for a happy camper" all over the NHL. There's no team that's going to take on Trouba for the retention we need to make it worth it. We can find a deal for another guy that his team does not want to pay this season. It has to be an expiring contract but it's fine to take on up to $6M this season to dump Trouba. The deal is made. Trouba refuses to report but the deal is not cancelled because the Rangers already agreed to keep the other guy whatever happens. Trouba then has the option to report and make $6M this season or to decline and have the other team terminate his contract. The other team goes through all the hassles because they got to dump the guy they didn't want to pay this season. Trouba coming back is just not going to work. He's going to be a point of agitation all season long as the Rangers try to figure out how to dump his deal so they can sign Laf, Miller and maybe Igor. Also, he's the Captain which is a bad look for a disgruntled player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 40 minutes ago, Pete said: It's not on Drury. It's on Trouba, Overhardt, and Brooks. Actually, what lies with Drury was maneuvering around contracts to move Goodrow and Trouba and "make the room uncomfortable", which is what fans wanted, and probably means UFA's are sketchy about coming here. Now those same fans see what that looks like and they're complaining about it. Yup. Everyone seems to want this cold and unsentimental GM or front office, which is fine. There are merits to that. However, the flip side is what you said. These guys often know each other. Were teammates elsewhere or as kids. Have the same agents, etc. I think it blows over after a season or two, but there’s a price you pay at least in the short term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 39 minutes ago, LindG1000 said: A lot of this is forecheck and puck pressure, which we will fix to some extent by having guys like Sam Carrick, Brett Berard, Chytil, and Cuylle (and depending on how the dominoes fall, one of Kakko/Smith) more active in the bottom 6.. A good deal of our 5v5 issues against Florida were in the transition game, which we have not fixed, and we are very much relying on Trouba to be smarter, Jones to be better than Gus, Fox to stay healthy, and Miller to take the next step. I think those ALL need to happen to feel like we can be sitting here at the end of February saying we don't need to move for a top 4 D. There’s a big drop in production from those top 5 forwards. They need more scoring from the bottom-6. Particularly line 3. Hopefully you get a healthy Chytil and a step from Kakko or someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 27 minutes ago, Br4d said: We can find a deal for another guy that his team does not want to pay this season. It has to be an expiring contract but it's fine to take on up to $6M this season to dump Trouba. The deal is made. Trouba refuses to report but the deal is not cancelled because the Rangers already agreed to keep the other guy whatever happens. Trouba then has the option to report and make $6M this season or to decline and have the other team terminate his contract. The other team goes through all the hassles because they got to dump the guy they didn't want to pay this season. Trouba coming back is just not going to work. He's going to be a point of agitation all season long as the Rangers try to figure out how to dump his deal so they can sign Laf, Miller and maybe Igor. Also, he's the Captain which is a bad look for a disgruntled player. So the answer to our problem is trading for another team's problem? Like I said, don't bet on it. Who are these players? Winnipeg isn't going to do this for Ehlers and I'm sure it's on the NTL, Carolina isn't going to do it for Necas, etc. We need to stop coming up with these "well this is how it works within the CBA and the cap" but would never play out in real life because teams don't operate that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 11 minutes ago, Pete said: It's not on Drury. It's on Trouba, Overhardt, and Brooks. Actually, what lies with Drury was maneuvering around contracts to move Goodrow and Trouba and "make the room uncomfortable", which is what fans wanted, and probably means UFA's are sketchy about coming here. Now those same fans see what that looks like and they're complaining about it. No, it's on Drury. He's GM. He wears everything, win or lose. I'm more than fine with how he operates, too. I don't give two shits about making the room uncomfortable. There's a limit to how much you can do that and field an effective team, but I have absolutely no problem with being cut throat (Vegas). The roster may get upset, but they'll settle in and compete just fine once the puck drops. What Drury needed to do, and we were told was the plan, was two-fold: 1. Move off certain deals (and did with one), not to make the room uncomfortable, but to actually gain cap room and remove negative impact players. This is a partial success. 2. Use that cap room to make meaningful adjustments. This is a partial failure. Mostly because the Trouba attempt failed, but a failure nonetheless. The result was watching every impact free agent sign elsewhere and settling for a milquetoast consolation prize in Reilly Smith. We'll see how well that works. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 minute ago, RangersIn7 said: There’s a big drop in production from those top 5 forwards. They need more scoring from the bottom-6. Particularly line 3. Hopefully you get a healthy Chytil and a step from Kakko or someone else. I don't know if that's a given. I'd assume you'll see some kind of regression from Panarin simply because 120 points is a real tough season to repeat, and maybe you expect Trocheck to be closer to 65 points than P/GP. I think Kreider's good for his Kreider things, Mika's probably due to regress and pick up those points from Trocheck, and Lafreniere should only go up. Either way, though - I think you're right that you need that third line to be more threatening. Chytil's going to be relied on heavily to make that happen, and while I think he can do it, I also think he's one concussion away from an early retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 4 minutes ago, Phil said: 2. Use that cap room to make meaningful adjustments. This is a partial failure. Mostly because the Trouba attempt failed, but a failure nonetheless. The most important part of the plan failed because of Trouba, Overhardt, and Brooks LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 5 minutes ago, Pete said: The most important part of the plan failed because of Trouba, Overhardt, and Brooks LOL. Yes, but Drury is GM. He wears it. Fairly or unfairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 minute ago, Phil said: Yes, but Drury is GM. He wears it. Fairly or unfairly. We can agree to disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 40 minutes ago, Pete said: So the answer to our problem is trading for another team's problem? Like I said, don't bet on it. Who are these players? Winnipeg isn't going to do this for Ehlers and I'm sure it's on the NTL, Carolina isn't going to do it for Necas, etc. We need to stop coming up with these "well this is how it works within the CBA and the cap" but would never play out in real life because teams don't operate that way. Trading for a one year problem is likely better than extending the existing problem into next season. If we have to buy out Trouba that will impact both 2025-2026 and 2026-27. Whatever happens with the 1 year deal we acquire it will not have that same multi-season impact on the cap. Unless Trouba tells Drury that he is ok with a trade in 2025-2026 I think we have to operate under the assumption that he will not be ok with the trade and will force a buyout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 45 minutes ago, Phil said: Yes, but Drury is GM. He wears it. Fairly or unfairly. He didn’t sign Trouba to that contract. He didn’t block the trade. He doesn’t carry much culpability in Trouba being here or remaining here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 We don't know if Lindy would have taken it, but I would have preferred $4m per for 3 or 4 years. Now, he'll be due for a raise from $4.5, so we'll have to pay him $5m if we keep him. If we don't keep him, we'll have to pay $5m for any kind of suitable first unit replacement. We're not going to get much cap relief on Trouba. It's clear that he will be bought out if he is not traded, and no one is going to take on that contract, or any part of it, when they know they can get him for 2 or 3 million as a UFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 No clue why anyone would assume this was up to Lindgren. We have no idea what was offered. Drury may not have even given him a multi-year offer, and if he did it could have been a lowball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 28 minutes ago, Sod16 said: We don't know if Lindy would have taken it, but I would have preferred $4m per for 3 or 4 years. Now, he'll be due for a raise from $4.5, so we'll have to pay him $5m if we keep him. This contract likely signals the end for him, here, which is why it's one year at the rate he wanted. Quote If we don't keep him, we'll have to pay $5m for any kind of suitable first unit replacement. And that's not a real issue as long as you're getting a legit physical, first pair partner for Fox, and not paying the walking bandaid who tries really hard, but is painfully small, bleeds for the team, but why should they pay anyone who puts themselves in as much risk as he does because he's spatial awareness is awful? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 5 minutes ago, Pete said: This contract likely signals the end for him, here, which is why it's one year at the rate he wanted. And that's not a real issue as long as you're getting a legit physical, first pair partner for Fox, and not paying the walking bandaid who tries really hard, but is painfully small, bleeds for the team, but why should they pay anyone who puts themselves in as much risk as he does because he's spatial awareness is awful? plus, I truly believe that Lindgren, when he gets rocked, generates momentum for the other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said: No clue why anyone would assume this was up to Lindgren. We have no idea what was offered. Drury may not have even given him a multi-year offer, and if he did it could have been a lowball. Not being snide… did you miss the article from a couple of days ago? Brooks I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said: Not being snide… did you miss the article from a couple of days ago? Brooks I believe. An intern wrote that article. I was vacationing in Bora Bora. A hypothetical 2 year deal at 4 million a year is an easy no when you can take 4.5m for a year straight to UFA at age 27. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 2 hours ago, RangersIn7 said: Not being snide… did you miss the article from a couple of days ago? Brooks I believe. ...did you just ask Brooks if he wrote his own article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said: An intern wrote that article. I was vacationing in Bora Bora. A hypothetical 2 year deal at 4 million a year is an easy no when you can take 4.5m for a year straight to UFA at age 27. It’s not hypothetical and they were willing to go as high as 3. Probably to 4 if he’d take a bit less money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, Phil said: ...did you just ask Brooks if he wrote his own article? I did. Also… ”You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” -Wayne Gretzky -MICHAEL SCOTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take at Pete” -Albatrosss 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 5 hours ago, Albatrosss said: “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take at Pete” -Albatrosss And in your case, you miss 100% of the shots you do take. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 9 hours ago, Pete said: And in your case, you miss 100% of the shots you do take. I lol'd 2 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