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

Andersson Lacks "Explosiveness" in Skating and Creativity


Phil

Recommended Posts

No, but at the same time the team was close due to a ridiculous run of completely unsustainable form earlier in the season.

I don't think this team was ever "close" in reality and it's certainly highly debatable whether adding Panarin and Karlsson would mean the Rangers were contenders for a CF spot.

 

CF spot is conference finals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rangers are not, and never were, two players away from a conference final.

 

They have one player with more than 50 points. To put that in perspective, the Flames have 5 players with 70 points.

 

Why do the Flames put that into perspective?

 

Nashville's leading scorers have 60 and 55 points. Vegas 54, 51, 51. On the other hand Florida's lead by 87, 82, 67, 61, 58.

 

Its more about balance than 50 point players. As Josh has mentioned all year, putting a Panarin and a Karlsson at the top of your depth chart slides everyone else into a more appropriate role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do the Flames put that into perspective?

 

Nashville's leading scorers have 60 and 55 points. Vegas 54, 51, 51. On the other hand Florida's lead by 87, 82, 67, 61, 58.

 

Its more about balance than 50 point players. As Josh has mentioned all year, putting a Panarin and a Karlsson at the top of your depth chart slides everyone else into a more appropriate role.

 

It’s perspective because the flames are at the top of the league and the Rangers are at the bottom. Nashville is 12th in NHL. Vegas is 11th. If you want to make the playoffs, let alone be considered a CF contender, you need more than one player eclipsing 50 points. You just do. The third higest scoring Ranger has 34 points. That is a joke by NHL standards and it’s the reason there closer to dead last than anything else.

 

Panarin and Karlsson might help them sniff the playoffs but they wouldn’t be in the the same company as the top 4 teams in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s perspective because the flames are at the top of the league and the Rangers are at the bottom. Nashville is 12th in NHL. Vegas is 11th. If you want to make the playoffs, let alone be considered a CF contender, you need more than one player eclipsing 50 points. You just do. The third higest scoring Ranger has 34 points. That is a joke by NHL standards and it’s the reason there closer to dead last than anything else.

 

Panarin and Karlsson might help them sniff the playoffs but they wouldn’t be in the the same company as the top 4 teams in the league.

 

So if you add Panarin and Karlsson that 3rd highest scoring Ranger is now fifth, not to mention everyone should score a little more when given better matchups.

 

Boston has 1 dynamite line, Krejci and Krug. Debrusk is 6th with 35 points.

 

This team is completely different with Panarin and Karlsson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you add Panarin and Karlsson that 3rd highest scoring Ranger is now fifth, not to mention everyone should score a little more when given better matchups.

 

Boston has 1 dynamite line, Krejci and Krug. Debrusk is 6th with 35 points.

 

This team is completely different with Panarin and Karlsson.

True they are a team with no cap space and still no playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every contract except 4 (in this hypothetical scenario) expires in the next 2 years so there'd be plenty of cap space.

 

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

 

Hopefully four years from now the rangers are resigning a lot of guys to rather expensive contracts. But maybe we will be trading them because of two 32 year old guys with ntc. Who knows? I’m positive these two will be the last two guys you will want to pay though at least till the next guy is available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is why we can’t agree on if they should sign them. You see them as a ecf level team adding those two players. I see them at best as a bubble team with zero chance at a cup run. I see a better chance of Karlsson being injury riddled and panarin hanging out under a bridge drinking with bums ala Theo fleury than a ecf team. Not because they aren’t good players but because the rangers roster is that bad and in other spots that young.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that’s a completely different argument. With Karlsson who is the rest of the defense for this cup contending team next year? I need a good laugh.

 

The argument was if Karlsson and Panarin were added to the team before Hayes and Zuccarello were traded. Probably more so for the sake of something to talk about since A) it's unrealistic cap wise (might as well talk about McDavid and Hedman) and B) ain't shit else to talk about until the draft lottery.

 

FWIW, if Karlsson and Panarin played the full season with Hayes and Zuccarello here, this absolutely would have been a playoff team with a strong bid for the CF. Just think, if it weren't for all of our overpayments of Staal, Smith, and Shattenkirk, this could have been a reality next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument was if Karlsson and Panarin were added to the team before Hayes and Zuccarello were traded. Probably more so for the sake of something to talk about since A) it's unrealistic cap wise (might as well talk about McDavid and Hedman) and B) ain't shit else to talk about until the draft lottery.

 

FWIW, if Karlsson and Panarin played the full season with Hayes and Zuccarello here, this absolutely would have been a playoff team with a strong bid for the CF. Just think, if it weren't for all of our overpayments of Staal, Smith, and Shattenkirk, this could have been a reality next year.

 

Is that his argument? So adding those two gets the rangers what? Playoffs? Contender?

 

Who gives a crap about what they would look like if they didn’t make those trades? Are we talking about reality or not? It would have made more sense to me to want to sign those guys if they didn’t just trade everybody. But yes the cap, that damn cap and those overpayments. I’m I missing something, weren’t those contracts handed out and everyone applauded? I know this time it’s diffrent. They are better players. Nothing can go wrong. The big difference is that the rangers have stripped it down to the bones this time. You are bringing two guys at a total of Almost 1/3rd of your cap and nothing around them. You are basically speeding up to the rebuild to be Edmonton. Top heavy as shit with a couple of stars and no depth. It only works when all the kids are on elcs. As soon as they hit rfa status you will see how quick the cap runs out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument was if Karlsson and Panarin were added to the team before Hayes and Zuccarello were traded. Probably more so for the sake of something to talk about since A) it's unrealistic cap wise (might as well talk about McDavid and Hedman) and B) ain't shit else to talk about until the draft lottery.

 

FWIW, if Karlsson and Panarin played the full season with Hayes and Zuccarello here, this absolutely would have been a playoff team with a strong bid for the CF. Just think, if it weren't for all of our overpayments of Staal, Smith, and Shattenkirk, this could have been a reality next year.

 

I understand this is just a bit of fun and there's really no way of proving anything one way or the other, but it doesn't really work that way.

Hockey is a team game first and foremost, and if you take Panarin he's playing for a team with a vastly superior roster all over the lineup and they are still struggling to make the playoffs.

I think it's fair to say the Rangers would be a lot closer to the playoffs with those 2 in the team, but I don't think they'd be anywhere near the conference finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that his argument? So adding those two gets the rangers what? Playoffs? Contender?

 

Who gives a crap about what they would look like if they didn?t make those trades? Are we talking about reality or not? It would have made more sense to me to want to sign those guys if they didn?t just trade everybody. But yes the cap, that damn cap and those overpayments. I?m I missing something, weren?t those contracts handed out and everyone applauded? I know this time it?s diffrent. They are better players. Nothing can go wrong. The big difference is that the rangers have stripped it down to the bones this time. You are bringing two guys at a total of Almost 1/3rd of your cap and nothing around them. You are basically speeding up to the rebuild to be Edmonton. Top heavy as shit with a couple of stars and no depth. It only works when all the kids are on elcs. As soon as they hit rfa status you will see how quick the cap runs out.

 

You mention Edmonton...might as well look at Buffalo too. Those teams, for the most part, have been rebuilding, the way you propose, forever it seems. Like I've said before, I understand your position but there's no definitive proof that the way you're proposing on this rebuild, is without flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mention Edmonton...might as well look at Buffalo too. Those teams, for the most part, have been rebuilding, the way you propose, forever it seems. Like I've said before, I understand your position but there's no definitive proof that the way you're proposing on this rebuild, is without flaws.

 

Wait a second. I have never said how long it will take other than longer than people here seem to think. Others here are saying we add these two guys and we are an ecf team. I suppose they mean next year. And you have an issue with my idea.

 

Of course what I’m proposing will take good drafting and developing paired with shrewd trades. It will take our gm doing a job like they did in Winnipeg rather than buffalo or Edmonton. We are talking about building a championship team here. Nothing is guaranteed or easy no matter how they do it. It’s about minimizing mistakes, having a clear picture of what you are trying to build, as in identity, and identifying the kind of player that you want wearing the jersey. It’s the the ultimate team sport and the sum of the parts will always win over mercenary teams. I guarantee nothing with what I’m proposing. What I’m trying to avoid is mistakes and unnecessary risks. That happens when you try to fast track past reality. The rangers had a good run for years. There was always going to be pain when they traded futures after futures year after year chasing the cup. Nobody is trying to relitigate those decisions. Most here agreed with them or at least understood why and didn’t care about what that meant about the future which is now today. So today after basically 13 months removed from the real start of the purge, people are clamoring for them to buy like its 2014 again. It’s as if the circumstances surrounding team don’t matter. It’s buy buy buy all the time. Willfully overlooking the constant mistakes that these massive long term deals usually turn out to be. In the same breath as their pleading for signing these guys they dispel the risk by pointing to finally getting out from under the current disasterous deals in the years to come. My idea would be to avoid these deals until the time it makes sense to take those risks. It’s going to take time for all these picks to develop. They will all develop at different paces. Let it happen. In the meantime work on putting the best team on the ice without signing these lkng term deals. We’d all rather have panarin and ek than other ufas if everything was the same. But it’s not and the only thing that can totally cripple this rebuild is if one of those deals turns sour. If that happens they are fucked for years. And for what? The present is a team with no chance. I’m not taking the risk of the future for basically no team success in the present. It doesn’t make sense at all. The kids are the key no mater what they do. Until they let them develop at least until their legally able to drink we need to be patient. When real signs are there that the kids are ready to be consistent nhl players than supplement them with a panarin and ek. Maybe by then they will have a better understanding on what they actually need. At the very least their star signings will have more prime years remaining just by waiting. What is being proposed here is the kids grow up and when they are ready panarin and ek are in their early 30’s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mention Edmonton...might as well look at Buffalo too. Those teams, for the most part, have been rebuilding, the way you propose, forever it seems. Like I've said before, I understand your position but there's no definitive proof that the way you're proposing on this rebuild, is without flaws.

 

Even hitting with Eichel and McDavid, the long list of other high draft picks who have not been the offensively impactful players these teams needed to get into the playoff and make noise. I understand you cannot expect Chytil, Anderson and Howden to be 70+ point dynamos out of the gate, but you have to admit there hasn't been much so far to say they are close to top 6 offensive forces. All 3 right now are nonfactors. Can babble about hitting walls, but right now they're getting ice time and still doing nothing.

 

Buchenevich is kind of getting there.

 

NYR have a lot of defense(and may be Fox, who knows) and 2 more goalies in the pipeline. What ever picks they get have to be geared toward forwards.

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...