Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

McKenzie: "Rangers want to get better in a hurry,"


Phil

Recommended Posts

I’m not implying to wait for the next one. I’m saying the rangers are not in a spot to invest in long term massive contracts that could come back to bite them in the ass at the exact point this team is finally turning the corner. It all could work out great you maybe right. But it can all go to shit to with the contract. My point is that taking that risk makes sense when you’re competing for a cup not when you’re trying to figure out who the fuck is your core two three years from now.

 

Yes, this is a standard risk with every contract, regardless of it's value.

 

My point is that getting into position to compete for a Cup is unlikely to occur any faster by playing to the dreaded middle. So, either suck — truly suck — for multiple cracks at the top-three in numerous drafts, preferably back-to-back, or sign superstars who want to play for you at the age of 27 as free agents when it costs nothing but money and do everything you can to continue to get better in a window while they're viable.

 

You advocated for another who wanted to be here. Thank god shattenkirk only got four years. I get it’s different with panarin. He’s 27 or 28 now but in khl years he’s really 22. Nobody knows how he’s going to age.

 

Indeed. I've been wrong before. I've also been right. Gaborik and Richards come to mind. It's a bit of a mixed bag. Comes with the territory of being human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 479
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Next year if they add just Panarin probably 8 points or so. Probably a 90 point team. That's added to the current team, not considering any progression from the young guys. With a bit of luck, some good steps forward for some of the young guys, who knows what could happen from there. Realistically I wouldn't expect to see a better playoff push until the year after.

 

Ok.

Columbus 2016-2017. No panarin. 108 points

2017-2018 with panarin. 97 points

This year 81 points with roughly 12 games left

 

Not saying he made them worse but hard to say he made them better what can definitely be said is that the rangers can go forward and compete next year and beyond without him. Columbus adding panarin was much like the rangers when they added Nash. It made sense and come playoff time you want that game breaker which he is. Problem is the rangers aren’t ready to contend. When they are game breakers become available. Like Nash did for us or St. Louis. How well it worked out isn’t the point. They were there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is a standard risk with every contract, regardless of it's value.

 

My point is that getting into position to compete for a Cup is unlikely to occur any faster by playing to the dreaded middle. So, either suck — truly suck — for multiple cracks at the top-three in numerous drafts, preferably back-to-back, or sign superstars who want to play for you at the age of 27 as free agents when it costs nothing but money and do everything you can to continue to get better in a window while they're viable.

 

 

 

Indeed. I've been wrong before. I've also been right. Gaborik and Richards come to mind. It's a bit of a mixed bag. Comes with the territory of being human.

 

 

As have I. I’m not arguing the player I’m arguing the risk and the timing. Richards and gaborik are two ufas that the rangers signed. I thought they were never available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As have I. I’m not arguing the player I’m arguing the risk and the timing. Richards and gaborik are two ufas that the rangers signed. I thought they were never available?

 

Yeah... like a decade ago. As I said, if you feel otherwise, by all means — show me the list of superstars that have actually made it to free agency in the last decade. My guess is you'll be able to count the total number on one hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.

Columbus 2016-2017. No panarin. 108 points

2017-2018 with panarin. 97 points

This year 81 points with roughly 12 games left

 

Not saying he made them worse but hard to say he made them better what can definitely be said is that the rangers can go forward and compete next year and beyond without him. Columbus adding panarin was much like the rangers when they added Nash. It made sense and come playoff time you want that game breaker which he is. Problem is the rangers aren?t ready to contend. When they are game breakers become available. Like Nash did for us or St. Louis. How well it worked out isn?t the point. They were there.

 

 

 

Look at Bob's #'s, when he won the Vezina, in 16-17.

 

How's Chicago since Panarin left?

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... like a decade ago. As I said, if you feel otherwise, by all means — show me the list of superstars that have actually made it to free agency in the last decade. My guess is you'll be able to count the total number on one hand.

 

Doesn’t matter. I’m not advocating signing any massive long term ufas anytime soon. Not until the foundation is set. Right now there is no core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn?t matter. I?m not advocating signing any massive long term ufas anytime soon. Not until the foundation is set. Right now there is no core.
Panarin, Karlsson, and Zib would be the core. Under 30 years old. Supported by 7 or 8 1st round picks over a three year span. Plus Hajek, Rykov, Howden, Lemieux, and the other young pieces added over the last couple years.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.

Columbus 2016-2017. No panarin. 108 points

2017-2018 with panarin. 97 points

This year 81 points with roughly 12 games left

 

Not saying he made them worse but hard to say he made them better what can definitely be said is that the rangers can go forward and compete next year and beyond without him. Columbus adding panarin was much like the rangers when they added Nash. It made sense and come playoff time you want that game breaker which he is. Problem is the rangers aren’t ready to contend. When they are game breakers become available. Like Nash did for us or St. Louis. How well it worked out isn’t the point. They were there.

 

Look at Bob's #'s, when he won the Vezina, in 16-17.

 

How's Chicago since Panarin left?

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

^ That. Bobrovsky was unreal that year. And the Chicago comparison (109 points with Panarin -> 76 points without) shows you can't just take team point totals and pin it on one player.

 

Columbus in 2016-2017 had 5 players 50+ points. High of 62 points. All 5 were forwards (one was Saad who was traded for Panarin). On top of that, it was Bobrovsky's career year.

Columbus in 2017-2018 had 2 players 50+ points. One was Panarin with a team high of 82 points - 20 points more than their 2016-2017 high. The other was defenseman Seth Jones. No forward from the previous year sniffed 50 points. Big problem. I assure you the problem wasn't Panarin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn?t matter. I?m not advocating signing any massive long term ufas anytime soon. Not until the foundation is set. Right now there is no core.

 

So it matters when you think it supports your point but then stops mattering when I challenge you to actually provide details?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panarin, Karlsson, and Zib would be the core. Under 30 years old. Supported by 7 or 8 1st round picks over a three year span. Plus Hajek, Rykov, Howden, Lemieux, and the other young pieces added over the last couple years.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

And probably Kreider if they commit to this route. It's really a nice looking core for the next 5 years, at which point hopefully some of those 1st round picks and prospects develop and can take on larger roles as those other guys fall into the supporting veteran role.

 

Kreider/Zib/Panarin is a legitimate 1st line, and a good one at that. Plenty of room for the kids to fight it out on the other lines, and doesn't block anyone from ice time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That. Bobrovsky was unreal that year. And the Chicago comparison (109 points with Panarin -> 76 points without) shows you can't just take team point totals and pin it on one player.

 

Columbus in 2016-2017 had 5 players 50+ points. High of 62 points. All 5 were forwards (one was Saad who was traded for Panarin). On top of that, it was Bobrovsky's career year.

Columbus in 2017-2018 had 2 players 50+ points. One was Panarin with a team high of 82 points - 20 points more than their 2016-2017 high. The other was defenseman Seth Jones. No forward from the previous year sniffed 50 points. Big problem. I assure you the problem wasn't Panarin.

 

S so sign him. You love it. I hate it. We’ll see.

 

And why the fuck would the rangers tear it down if the plan was to sign these two. Why not keep Hayes and zucc? They would still have all the young guys you want to build around that are currently ranger property. I know they would have to free up cap. Maybe if they didn’t sign a terrible ufa deal with shattenkirk, that you both had to have, sound familiar, they could have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S so sign him. You love it. I hate it. We’ll see.

 

And why the fuck would the rangers tear it down if the plan was to sign these two. Why not keep Hayes and zucc? They would still have all the young guys you want to build around that are currently ranger property. I know they would have to free up cap.

 

Seems like you know the answer already, so why are you whining about them making those trades for assets?

 

Maybe if they didn’t sign a terrible ufa deal with shattenkirk, that you both had to have, sound familiar, they could have.

 

I wasn't even posting here regularly, so I'm not sure how you can make that claim that I wanted Shattenkirk. It sounds like you are just close minded about UFAs because they missed on a couple like Shattenkirk. All the good ones I guess we just ignore or pretend didn't happen, like Gaborik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it matters when you think it supports your point but then stops mattering when I challenge you to actually provide details?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

No it doesn’t matter. Because I’m talking about a 3-5 year plan here. There will be guys available in that time. Even if it’s 5 guys a decade, by those numbers somebody will be there in the next couple of years.

 

Just forget that tampa, Winnipeg and Toronto are both going to lose some really good players because of the cap. Having space would be ideal to take advantage of that situation. Talking about who’s available two three years from now is way more complicated than you want to quantify. Of course some of those guys may have to be traded for but the cap doesn’t care how you acquired them. The rangers by selling off their roster have set themselves up to have the assets to make those trades when the roster clarifies. Give it time and you will get your game breakers and $11m player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn?t matter. Because I?m talking about a 3-5 year plan here. There will be guys available in that time. Even if it?s 5 guys a decade, by those numbers somebody will be there in the next couple of years.

 

Just forget that tampa, Winnipeg and Toronto are both going to lose some really good players because of the cap. Having space would be ideal to take advantage of that situation. Talking about who?s available two three years from now is way more complicated than you want to quantify. Of course some of those guys may have to be traded for but the cap doesn?t care how you acquired them. The rangers by selling off their roster have set themselves up to have the assets to make those trades when the roster clarifies. Give it time and you will get your game breakers and $11m player.

 

At the level (and age) of Panarin? More like one or two a decade.

 

As I said before, I'm fine with patience. I'm not fine with "just sign the next one," when that might not happen for another decade, and I'm definitely not fine with any attempt to discredit Panarin as not moving the needle.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like you know the answer already, so why are you whining about them making those trades for assets?

 

 

 

I wasn't even posting here regularly, so I'm not sure how you can make that claim that I wanted Shattenkirk. It sounds like you are just close minded about UFAs because they missed on a couple like Shattenkirk. All the good ones I guess we just ignore or pretend didn't happen, like Gaborik.

 

 

Now I’m whining for defending my point of view. So you insult me because you can’t change my mind. Seems reasonable. I’m sure if I respond in kind I will get an infraction

 

I was referring to king and Phil when I said both. And both had the same argument when shattenkirk was a ufa. Just forget that this time they are right and having a different opinion is obviously wrong headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assbackwards way of building a team but ok. All those young guys will need to get paid before those contracts end. Assuming they all grow into what?s expected you will have a problem five years from now. Hopefully ek can still walk by then.
Is it? Building around players under 30 and having 8 1st rounders in 3 years? All those young players will be RFAs. They wont all sign big long term deals. If they're all happen to be that good that's a great problem to have. There's not a great precedent for guys holding out. Drouin? Nylander?...Tampa and Toronto seem fine.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I?m whining for defending my point of view. So you insult me because you can?t change my mind. Seems reasonable. I?m sure if I respond in kind I will get an infraction

 

I was referring to king and Phil when I said both. And both had the same argument when shattenkirk was a ufa. Just forget that this time they are right and having a different opinion is obviously wrong headed.

Classic, always the victim.

 

Oh, and stop comparing Shattenkirk and Richards to Karlsson and Panarin. It's not even close.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the level (and age) of Panarin? More like one or two a decade.

 

As I said before, I'm fine with patience. I'm not fine with "just sign the next one," when that might not happen for another decade, and I'm definitely not fine with any attempt to discredit Panarin as not moving the needle.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

So don’t be fine with it. I don’t like panarin as much as you. Is that really a big deal? Ek has a rap sheet of injury problems, is that not true? You admit there is risk. I don’t view any wingers other than ovechkin as franchise players and he’s old now. That includes hall. Macdavid, Tavares, Matthews all get the money you’re talking about. They are centers, huge difference.

 

The rangers are almost bare bones now in the rebuild process. To me I’m trying to build the team I want not just take the best available. I’ll wait and build the foundation until I can get the franchise guy at the position I think matters. Maybe I draft that guy, trade for him, or god blesses me with making him available by free agency. Regardless I hope, I pray there is a blueprint in the minds of the rangers brass of what this team looks like when it’s in completion. Not the names but the types of players and the positions they fill.

 

The same people who will tell you that draft picks are lottery tickets and that the rangers can never draft for shit, now can’t part with any of them if a young game changing talent becomes available. Again I’m not advocating to make a trade right now. I’m advocating to stay the course. Draft and develop and use the newly created cap space to their advantage to acquire players cap strapped teams are forced to move. Just don’t make any long term commitments to guys that will be in their mid 30s when this team is hopefully ready to contend.

 

So often these conversations get lost in bullshit. Taylor hall vs panarin. Who cares? The rangers aren’t ready for either In my Opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic, always the victim.

 

Oh, and stop comparing Shattenkirk and Richards to Karlsson and Panarin. It's not even close.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

And I’m not comparing them. I’m pointing out that those arguing with me had the same argument regarding those two players. Richards I was on board with shattenkirk I was not. Doesn’t matter. It does matter that there isn’t a guy who becomes available that you don’t think they should go after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it? Building around players under 30 and having 8 1st rounders in 3 years? All those young players will be RFAs. They wont all sign big long term deals. If they're all happen to be that good that's a great problem to have. There's not a great precedent for guys holding out. Drouin? Nylander?...Tampa and Toronto seem fine.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

Rangers have no experience with having anchor contracts. I’m sure that after panarin and ek they will resist adding salary. And you will resist in wanting them too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...