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

Panarin and Saad both make $6M per year, so no that trade had nothing to do with cap. Toews wanted Saad back.

 

Not sure how Chicago proves your point. They sucked for a decade. Picked in the top 10 seven times. Got lucky to have the #1 OA pick in Kane's year (he has 300 more points than anyone else in that draft). They won 3 cups and were buyers at the deadline. They paid their guys and it left them with no farm system.

It was a little about cap because Saad contract is longer than Panarin. His number was certain, where now Panarin is going to make probably 2x what Saad makes. I don't think CHI expected to be this bad when they made that trade. I'm sure they'd rather have had a Panarin to trade at this year's deadline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 479
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It was a little about cap because Saad contract is longer than Panarin. His number was certain, where now Panarin is going to make probably 2x what Saad makes. I don't think CHI expected to be this bad when they made that trade. I'm sure they'd rather have had a Panarin to trade at this year's deadline.

 

Exactly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same cap hit, and Panarin's contract was signed when he was with the Hawks. Instead of making stuff up why not just stick to what’s actually said.

Saad is good friends with Toews.

 

 

why not target FAs instead of destroying your rebuild by giving up 4 1sts for a guy with 1 good season?

 

 

I am. He made a comparison between kane and panarin. How do their contracts not come up then? Panarin was traded because of cap certainty. So as long as there are other bad contracts on Chicago their massive deals have no bearing? Good thing the rangers are immune from handing out bad contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a little about cap because Saad contract is longer than Panarin. His number was certain, where now Panarin is going to make probably 2x what Saad makes. I don't think CHI expected to be this bad when they made that trade. I'm sure they'd rather have had a Panarin to trade at this year's deadline.

 

Exactly

 

If they traded Paranin to help with cap, why did they not A) Take back less cap, or B) make an even cap trade for a player that's scored more than 53 points. "Hey, Saad is overpaid, but at least he's locked in at that price for an extra 2 years." I don't buy that. The move was to make Toews happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am. He made a comparison between kane and panarin. How do their contracts not come up then? Panarin was traded because of cap certainty. So as long as there are other bad contracts on Chicago their massive deals have no bearing? Good thing the rangers are immune from handing out bad contracts.

 

They took a worse player on longer-term contract. How the hell does this go along with anything you've said? You're all over the place.

 

I thought you didn't want long-term deals, now youre saying this was a good one? If they took the "better cap deal", why isnt their rebuild better? And shouldnt they have more cap space then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They took a worse player on longer-term contract. How the hell does this go along with anything you've said? You're all over the place.

 

I thought you didn't want long-term deals, now youre saying this was a good one? If they took the "better cap deal", why isnt their rebuild better? And shouldnt they have more cap space then?

 

 

That is not what I said st all. I don’t want any of them. Kane at 27 I could see maybe but panarin is not him. I didn’t bring up the comparison that they were equal. I bring up the trade because I thought you said that players like him do t become available yet he was traded for horse shit at 25. I don’t want to offer sheet anyone at the cost of four firsts other than two players maybe. Macdavid or Matthews would be the only players I would consider and both are locked up.

 

This conversation keeps getting twisted because it turns into comparisons with other players. I Don’t want any of them. Signing the best highest price guy is not creative, it’s not logical, and it’s not new. A PlayStation gm could do better. This team is full of holes. $12m in cap space can be used on multiple improvements and better yet at little term. You want to stick Dzingel as me being all over the place? Dzingel at 4 years for half the money with no ntc is far and away from what you are talking about. In fact as the kids grow he becomes a trade asset. More importantly the rangers aren’t tied to any decision they make in year one of rebuilding. I don’t care if you find watching them boring. That’s your prerogative to feel that way. I don’t share your sentiments. I understood that rebuilding meant time. All those arguments about rebuilding before they pulled the trigger are the same people who want to expedite the rebuild now. It’s not lost on me that those who want to sign the Stars were all on board with trading first after first for Staal, handle and the like. They are also the ones that wanted no part with tearing it down when hanging around s playoff spot yet obviously fatally flawed. Now those same people make the case that the rangers can’t go on without yet again chasing the biggest fish. Well I know how the past has played out and quite frankly your record is not good. Cary on regardless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they traded Paranin to help with cap, why did they not A) Take back less cap, or B) make an even cap trade for a player that's scored more than 53 points. "Hey, Saad is overpaid, but at least he's locked in at that price for an extra 2 years." I don't buy that. The move was to make Toews happy.
Well, that's kinda why I said it was a LITTLE about cap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what I said st all. I don’t want any of them. Kane at 27 I could see maybe but panarin is not him. I didn’t bring up the comparison that they were equal. I bring up the trade because I thought you said that players like him do t become available yet he was traded for horse shit at 25. I don’t want to offer sheet anyone at the cost of four firsts other than two players maybe. Macdavid or Matthews would be the only players I would consider and both are locked up.

 

This conversation keeps getting twisted because it turns into comparisons with other players. I Don’t want any of them. Signing the best highest price guy is not creative, it’s not logical, and it’s not new. A PlayStation gm could do better. This team is full of holes. $12m in cap space can be used on multiple improvements and better yet at little term. You want to stick Dzingel as me being all over the place? Dzingel at 4 years for half the money with no ntc is far and away from what you are talking about. In fact as the kids grow he becomes a trade asset. More importantly the rangers aren’t tied to any decision they make in year one of rebuilding. I don’t care if you find watching them boring. That’s your prerogative to feel that way. I don’t share your sentiments. I understood that rebuilding meant time. All those arguments about rebuilding before they pulled the trigger are the same people who want to expedite the rebuild now. It’s not lost on me that those who want to sign the Stars were all on board with trading first after first for Staal, handle and the like. They are also the ones that wanted no part with tearing it down when hanging around s playoff spot yet obviously fatally flawed. Now those same people make the case that the rangers can’t go on without yet again chasing the biggest fish. Well I know how the past has played out and quite frankly your record is not good. Cary on regardless

 

You can't just sit around for 2, 4, 8 years and expect the kids to magically get better just because they got older.

It takes vets, good vets, and a winning environment for the growth and the development of your youth.

 

Toews/Kane had Havlat, Patrick Sharp, they went and got Brian Campbell and Marian Hossa.

Crosby/Malkin rosters were filled with vets including Mario.

 

No kids have ever done it on their own.

 

Well I know how the past has played out and quite frankly your record is not good. Cary on regardless

 

There's a huge difference between now and then.

Andersson, Kravtsov, Chytil, Shesterkin, Miller, Lundkvist, Rykov, Howden, Hajek, Lindgren

In the 19 and 20 they have a combined 10 picks in the first 3 rounds.

 

Additionally, they have 1 contract with more than 3 seasons left. And they have a TON of cap coming off in 2 seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I want to add vets to compete for ice time. Signing panarin and being able to do little else because of the cap basically gives all the kids spots ready or not. There is no depth in this organization, none. I agree they need a winning environment and so forth. I believe those things have a better chance of happening by strengthening multiple holes rather than just one big splash. We disagree but this is never going to end. I have my opinion you have yours. More than likely the team stinks next year no matter what they do. There are just to many holes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I want to add vets to compete for ice time. Signing panarin and being able to do little else because of the cap basically gives all the kids spots ready or not.There is no depth in this organization, none. I agree they need a winning environment and so forth. I believe those things have a better chance of happening by strengthening multiple holes rather than just one big splash. We disagree but this is never going to end. I have my opinion you have yours. More than likely the team stinks next year no matter what they do. There are just to many holes.

 

Just not true.

 

Zib, Kreider, Namestnikov, Buchnevich, Strome, Vesey, Fast. 7 forward spots taken by vets. 8 if you add Panarin. 9 if you include Lemieux. 3 spots left...

 

Your proposal of signing vets like Dzingel and Tanev further clogs the lineup and makes the Rangers mediocre enough to not be a playoff team or get a top draft pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just not true.

 

Zib, Kreider, Namestnikov, Buchnevich, Strome, Vesey, Fast. 7 forward spots taken by vets. 8 if you add Panarin. 9 if you include Lemieux. 3 spots left...

 

Your proposal of signing vets like Dzingel and Tanev further clogs the lineup and makes the Rangers mediocre enough to not be a playoff team or get a top draft pick.

 

If they don't clean out and upgrade some of these guys Namestnikov, Buchnevich, Strome, Vesey they're gonna suck again, especially when you mix in the garbage D.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't clean and upgrade some of these guys Namestnikov, Buchnevich, Strome, Vesey they're gonna suck again, especially when you mix in the garbage D.

 

That's fine. I don't expect them to be good next year, no matter who they add...Panarin, Dzingel or anyone else really. The following year I expect more of the necessary pieces to be in place, and it will be nice at that time to have Panarin moving forward rather than the junk that is due up in FA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I want to add vets to compete for ice time. Signing panarin and being able to do little else because of the cap basically gives all the kids spots ready or not. There is no depth in this organization, none. I agree they need a winning environment and so forth. I believe those things have a better chance of happening by strengthening multiple holes rather than just one big splash. We disagree but this is never going to end. I have my opinion you have yours. More than likely the team stinks next year no matter what they do. There are just to many holes.

 

I think they only have depth, whether it’s now or in the future. They lack 1st liners/pairs, now and future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding depth pieces to the 6th-worst NHL franchise is fine, but you better be bringing in skill ALSO. Otherwise you're in the exact same spot. Rangers have a lineup of depth players. Adding another Namestnikov-like player or (god forbid) another Fast-like player is almost like doing nothing at all.

 

If you have a chance to make your team better, you do it.

 

Also, people are acting like Panarin is a done deal. Could be in for a shock come July 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, people are acting like Panarin is a done deal. Could be in for a shock come July 1st.

 

Watch him go to the Islanders.

 

The Rangers should have two plans ready to go. One with Panarin and one without, and they can be drastically different. It could be the difference between being competitive in 2 years versus 5+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn?t that the point of having 8-9 first round picks in three years? The idea is to draft and develop them.
We know Panarin is a point per game player. How many Skille's and Barker's did the Hawks draft before finding Toews and Kane? How many top 5 picks did the Oilers have before drafting McDavid and Draisaitl? The draft will always be a question mark. If you have Paranin and Zibanejad scoring a point per game, drafting RNH (Andersson) high in the first round helps your team instead of hoping for that guy to turn into the answer..

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch him go to the Islanders.

 

The Rangers should have two plans ready to go. One with Panarin and one without, and they can be drastically different. It could be the difference between being competitive in 2 years versus 5+ years.

There is no plan B. The point is to sign an elite player, not just the best UFA. If the elite player signs elsewhere then stand pat.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see Paranin being he difference maker,putting the rangers all Easter eggs in his basket will be like putting it in Shattenkirks basket

we will all be bagging to buy out another p!ayer contract

Explain how Panarin and Shattenkirk are at all the same.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no plan B. The point is to sign an elite player, not just the best UFA. If the elite player signs elsewhere then stand pat.

 

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

 

Standing pat is not good enough. They shouldn't extend Kreider to a big contract without having made any moves for example. They should be trading him if they don't get Panarin IMO. They can carry him through the whole season and deal him at the deadline, but are we really going to do this slow bleed to the trade deadline 3 years in a row? Please no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standing pat is not good enough. They shouldn't extend Kreider to a big contract without having made any moves for example. They should be trading him if they don't get Panarin IMO. They can carry him through the whole season and deal him at the deadline, but are we really going to do this slow bleed to the trade deadline 3 years in a row? Please no.
I would trade Kreider either way. That's not what I meant. Talking strictly about bringing in UFA's.

 

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

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...