Pete Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 I agree Even with Karlsson coming in, playing 25+ minutes a night, the D still is subpar. He?s one guy on 1 pairingI think you're drastically underrating shutting down half the ice for half the game and what that does to the rest of the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 Signing Panarin actually does improve the defense, too. By proxy. One of the biggest issues with this defense, who are actually mostly designed to move the puck (sans Staal), is not having many forwards outside of Zibanejad capable of accepting outlet passes to spring offense. They still can't defend worth a shit in their own end, but the best defense is a good offense, which is accomplished via good forwards (Panarin) and a mobile, puck-moving defense (Shattenkirk, Skjei, DeAngelo, Hajek can all pass well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 I think you're drastically underrating shutting down half the ice for half the game and what that does to the rest of the defense. I could be. Karlsson’s possession numbers are so strong he could provide that kind of s boost and clearly if he’s on your D, your D is better. But I’ll harken back to 15-20 years ago. They had Leetch in his prime. They couldn’t keep the pick out of their net. In the greatest era for defense in the game’s history. And shut down and Karlsson don’t really belong in the same sentence. He’s like 60 % OZS. He’s successful as a defender due to his team having the puck. He’s not deployed or thought if as a shut down guy. But you do get a similar result I suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 I could be. Karlsson?s possession numbers are so strong he could provide that kind of s boost and clearly if he?s on your D, your D is better. But I?ll harken back to 15-20 years ago. They had Leetch in his prime. They couldn?t keep the pick out of their net. In the greatest era for defense in the game?s history. And shut down and Karlsson don?t really belong in the same sentence. He?s like 60 % OZS. He?s successful as a defender due to his team having the puck. He?s not deployed or thought if as a shut down guy. But you do get a similar result I supposeWhat the game was 15 years ago is moot, really. Shutting down half the ice for half the game means the right side D zone rarely has the puck in it. If that's because it's always in OZone... Yea, same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 What the game was 15 years ago is moot, really. Shutting down half the ice for half the game means the right side D zone rarely has the puck in it. If that's because it's always in OZone... Yea, same effect. Yeah But it’s still a maybe to me in some respect. And it’s a fair comparison even if the game is different. Leetch in 1999 is comparable to what Karlsson is in 2019. Having Leetch in that era still resulted in the Rangers being poor defensively Would you be shocked if the Rangers signed Karlsson and still were bottom third of league in goals against? I wouldn’t There’s still half of 1 pair and 2 other full pairs that can be exploited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Yeah But it?s still a maybe to me in some respect. And it?s a fair comparison even if the game is different. Leetch in 1999 is comparable to what Karlsson is in 2019. Having Leetch in that era still resulted in the Rangers being poor defensively Would you be shocked if the Rangers signed Karlsson and still were bottom third of league in goals against? I wouldn?t There?s still half of 1 pair and 2 other full pairs that can be exploited.Actually, I would be. You have the puck alot longer with Karlsson than with anyone else on our D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Actually, I would be. You have the puck alot longer with Karlsson than with anyone else on our D. Ok I’m a little surprised at that I think middle of the league at best, but probably around 21-23. I’m just concerned on 7 years of Karlsson For 5 years I’d be all over him. But I can’t see that happening unless he has a burning desire to play in NY or Hank can convince him. Someone will throw 7 years and huge money at him, and it will be hard for him to pass that up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Ok I?m a little surprised at that I think middle of the league at best, but probably around 21-23. I?m just concerned on 7 years of Karlsson For 5 years I?d be all over him. But I can?t see that happening unless he has a burning desire to play in NY or Hank can convince him. Someone will throw 7 years and huge money at him, and it will be hard for him to pass that upIf he thinks he can blend in off ice in NY, I think he comes. If SJ is gonna pay him, he'll stay. He's been through a lot. I think he wants to go to a "normal" city. No way he goes anywhere in Canada or where hockey is the center of attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 If he thinks he can blend in off ice in NY, I think he comes. If SJ is gonna pay him, he'll stay. He's been through a lot. I think he wants to go to a "normal" city. No way he goes anywhere in Canada or where hockey is the center of attention. I agree with that I think it’s SJ, NY, or TB as most likely destinations My big question though is if the Rangers won’t go 7 years, on which who knows how they feel about that as it relates to him, and they only go as high as 5, is that a non-starter for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 I agree with that I think it’s SJ, NY, or TB as most likely destinations My big question though is if the Rangers won’t go 7 years, on which who knows how they feel about that as it relates to him, and they only go as high as 5, is that a non-starter for him? He'd have to really love New York to pass on 20 something million dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 I have a hard enough time rationalizing panarin. Karlsson is a downright scary thought. It’s a matter of when he breaks down to me. Also the rangers defense needs a stabilizer if not two, in my opinion. That is not karlsson. He is as freelance as can be. Also the rangers have guys who play the same style and fox could be another. By no means am I comparing any with karlsson but ada, shattenkirk, pionk all play the same game. Signing karlsson makes at least two of them usesless. I know ada can stay and the other suck anyway. I’m just pointing out roster structure would need ig changes to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 He'd have to really love New York to pass on 20 something million dollars. That’s my thought He stays in SJ, he gets 8 years and maybe 100 million On any 7 year deal, he’s getting at least what Doughty got, probably more, so you’re looking at 80 million or better on that On a 5 year deal, even at 13 million per, he’s leaving st least 12-15 million and 2 years of guaranteed paychecks on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 That?s my thought He stays in SJ, he gets 8 years and maybe 100 million On any 7 year deal, he?s getting at least what Doughty got, probably more, so you?re looking at 80 million or better on that On a 5 year deal, even at 13 million per, he?s leaving st least 12-15 million and 2 years of guaranteed paychecks on the table.He can only be paid X% of the cap as top dollar. Not sure but I don't know if $13 is realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 21, 2019 Author Share Posted April 21, 2019 He can only be paid X% of the cap as top dollar. Not sure but I don't know if $13 is realistic. Maximum under the current CBA and salary cap is just south of $16 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 He can only be paid X% of the cap as top dollar. Not sure but I don't know if $13 is realistic. Doughty got 11 per over 8 years last summer Max contracts are 20% of cap 13 might be a little high. But he’s getting at least what Doughty got. And he’ll be shooting for more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodka Drunkenski Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Huge pass on Karlsson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphinity 2.0 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Huge pass on KarlssonWith you 100%. He does not look good out there. He hasn't really all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Huge pass on KarlssonWith you 100%. He does not look good out there. He hasn't really all season.I don't think they really need him. I'd like them to get a RHD to settle Skjei. Stralman, Methot types. McIlrath is a UFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 That’s my thought He stays in SJ, he gets 8 years and maybe 100 million On any 7 year deal, he’s getting at least what Doughty got, probably more, so you’re looking at 80 million or better on that On a 5 year deal, even at 13 million per, he’s leaving st least 12-15 million and 2 years of guaranteed paychecks on the table. I don't think they really need him. I'd like them to get a RHD to settle Skjei. Stralman, Methot types. McIlrath is a UFA. I agree 100%. However im just curious why you feel they can sign a stralman or methot instead of karlsson but they can’t pass on panarin for a lesser player or nobody at all? Or at the very least see the logic in doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 I agree 100%. However im just curious why you feel they can sign a stralman or methot instead of karlsson but they can’t pass on panarin for a lesser player or nobody at all? Or at the very least see the logic in doing that? One really has nothing to do with the other and I've stated my case hundreds of times, so I'm not really interested in doing it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 We have too many D as it is. A shoe has to drop before they spend back there. It definitely feels like they should take another year off and let the contracts tick down, but that's really depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodka Drunkenski Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 We have too many D as it is. A shoe has to drop before they spend back there. It definitely feels like they should take another year off and let the contracts tick down, but that's really depressing. Depressing but the right thing to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Trouba’s name has come up so much in trade rumors. He wants big money but won’t get near what Karlsson will, and he just turned 25. Maybe they make a move for him. They could also wait till next summer on him, but who knows if he’ll be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Trouba?s name has come up so much in trade rumors. He wants big money but won?t get near what Karlsson will, and he just turned 25. Maybe they make a move for him. They could also wait till next summer on him, but who knows if he?ll be there. Really depends on the cost. I'm not sold on giving up a ton of assets followed by 7-8m a year for him on a long term contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Really depends on the cost. I'm not sold on giving up a ton of assets followed by 7-8m a year for him on a long term contract. He won’t be cheap. 25 year old RH defensemen who play 23 minutes a night are expensive. Maybe they get a little break on the price if Winnipeg is forced to trade him, but they’re still going to want something of value. Probably looking at a package that includes one of Miller/Lundkvist/Hajek Not sure Gorton would want to do that 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