Here's to a Good Season

My money is on option 2, though it's dependent on what the contract looks like. I'd like to think they'll have no problem getting him on a 2 x 1.5-2 per kind of bridge deal. Anything more than that I think they will be looking at arbitration or reverting back to either option 1 OR potentially an option 4, which is to trade Georgiev AND Hank retires (I'm doubting he actually wants to be a backup) or is bought out, then sign a cheap backup or give Huska a go.

I can promise you that there is no scenario in which Huska is an option. I don't think he has an NHL future at all unless he figures out how to consistently stop pucks going to the top portion of the net.

Brooks is kind of on both sides here, but the problem is that the player is worth more than the pick.

 

Lafreniere will go #1. If we have #1, Lafreniere is the pick, no questions asked.

 

Where it gets interesting is what does each team actually want? The Rangers straight up do not need a left wing. We have Panarin, we have Kreider, and we committed to both of them within the last 13 months. We've also got Kakko who plays both sides. Time changes things, but LW just isn't a position top contenders stack up on. We desperately need a center like Byfield, but we simply cannot justify passing on Lafreniere....so long as we hold #1.

 

So the question at hand is....who wants who?

 

If NYR want Byfield, LA wants Stutzle (as is heavily rumored), and OTT wants Lafreniere, we can and should figure out a three way trade that lets us maximize the pick value.

I agree, but that sort of thing never happens in the NHL. Probably because setting a price for trading down from #1 that everyone is happy with is extremely hard.

I mean, what is your price for trading with Ottawa, for instance? If I'm Ottawa I'm definitely in two minds giving up 4 & 5 for #1. Lafreniere is very good, but is he better than Stutzle AND Perfetti? That's certainly debatable. If I'm the Rangers I probably take that deal. You can ask for #4 and Ottawas 1st next season, but that's not really in the Rangers best interests.

I also agree with the point on Rangers not really needing LW. You could possibly argue that being able to push Kreider to the 3rd line is exactly the sort of depth the Rangers need. It would be over paid depth, but it would be offset somewhat by Lafreniere being on his rookie deal. I mean, if Kreider is an unquestionable top 6 guy by the time Lafrienieres ELC is out we're probably not in a very good place anyway.

Georgiev's 'stock' isnt going up sitting on the bench for 2 seasons.

 

UFA & RFA goalies this season he is

18th in GAA

12 in SV%

 

That's just free agents this summer, not all the goalies in the league.

I agree

This is part of the reason why they should probably just move him now.

I agree, but that sort of thing never happens in the NHL. Probably because setting a price for trading down from #1 that everyone is happy with is extremely hard.

I mean, what is your price for trading with Ottawa, for instance? If I'm Ottawa I'm definitely in two minds giving up 4 & 5 for #1. Lafreniere is very good, but is he better than Stutzle AND Perfetti? That's certainly debatable. If I'm the Rangers I probably take that deal. You can ask for #4 and Ottawas 1st next season, but that's not really in the Rangers best interests.

I also agree with the point on Rangers not really needing LW. You could possibly argue that being able to push Kreider to the 3rd line is exactly the sort of depth the Rangers need. It would be over paid depth, but it would be offset somewhat by Lafreniere being on his rookie deal. I mean, if Kreider is an unquestionable top 6 guy by the time Lafrienieres ELC is out we're probably not in a very good place anyway.

Normally I would agree but this sort of thing has happened twice in the last 20 years and may be necessitated by the flat cap.

I’d be very careful just throwing every egg into the Shesty backup. By no means do I think he’s not the real deal, but a ton can happen. Georgiev would be nice to keep just because of the idea he has to sign this bridge deal. Two years is a long tine in the hockey world and we are better having him over Henrik for those two years even if the buyout + re-up for Georgie equals out.

 

Besides, maybe it’s just me, but this team plays it’s worst when Henrik is in goal, at least fro, the eye test. It’s just time to move on in my opinion.

It’s a valid point you make.

But unfortunately they have Hank under contract, they buyout is costly, and given all the factors surrounding it, Georgiev might be be the sacrifice because of it.

I look at Hank’s performance this year through a different lens somewhat.

I actually believe that if he came into a season and knew he was going to be the backup and what his workload would be and knew about how often and how regularly he would be playing, he’d be fine.

There wouldn’t be, IMO, much if any discrepancy between Hank and Georgiev

Normally I would agree but this sort of thing has happened twice in the last 20 years and may be necessitated by the flat cap.

What may be necessitated by the flat cap?

I’d be very careful just throwing every egg into the Shesty backup. By no means do I think he’s not the real deal, but a ton can happen. Georgiev would be nice to keep just because of the idea he has to sign this bridge deal. Two years is a long tine in the hockey world and we are better having him over Henrik for those two years even if the buyout + re-up for Georgie equals out.

 

Besides, maybe it’s just me, but this team plays it’s worst when Henrik is in goal, at least fro, the eye test. It’s just time to move on in my opinion.

How does this play out with the expansion draft? We need to expose one goalie, right?

How does this play out with the expansion draft? We need to expose one goalie, right?

That’s next offseason. They play in 21/22

How does this play out with the expansion draft? We need to expose one goalie, right?

You need to expose one but it can be any jabroni that meets the criteria. The Rangers don’t have to protect Shesterkin since he’s ineligible so the Rangers could use their goalie spot on Georgiev if he’s still around.

The Rangers were fifth in G/GP and seventh in PP% throughout the regular season. Scoring clearly wasn't an option then. Instead of trying to pin this on the coaches, why not blame it on those who actually failed to execute? The players. David Oliver isn't skating onto the ice to set up Zibanejad for one-timers on the PP.

just like players who can step up or disappear in the playoffs, same thing goes for coaches. You got your Tampa coach that has amazing seasons but chokes in the playoffs and you got Brind'Amour that surprises teams in the playoffs. Our coaching staff choked so far. In 3 games we really didn't come close to winning any of them. Let's assume it was bad luck and very small sample size. we will see how they fare next season or weather they even make the playoffs. But not every offseason you have several top of the line proven NHL coaches available. Let Quinn keep trying to win on the AHL level in Hartford.

Lol shit, I didn?t even realize he meant the following year. Thanks Drew!

I could have been clearer. I was thinking about how much planning for the ExpDraft goes into our roster management now? That have to be thinking about it.

just like players who can step up or disappear in the playoffs, same thing goes for coaches. You got your Tampa coach that has amazing seasons but chokes in the playoffs and you got Brind'Amour that surprises teams in the playoffs. Our coaching staff choked so far. In 3 games we really didn't come close to winning any of them. Let's assume it was bad luck and very small sample size. we will see how they fare next season or weather they even make the playoffs. But not every offseason you have several top of the line proven NHL coaches available. Let Quinn keep trying to win on the AHL level in Hartford.

Except that's not remotely the case here. Does the quality of a lineup mean nothing to you? This team was not good enough. Period. End of story. Stop trying to deflect it to the coaches because that's who you've decided to crusade against. They had two players in lineup that were considered two of the best players in the league during the regular season this past year and those players went MIA. Unless I missed something and Panarin and Zibanejad are now also the coaches, the coaches are not the ones responsible for the loss here.

And no. Quinn is not going to Hartford no matter how much you wish.

Except that's not remotely the case here. Does the quality of a lineup mean nothing to you? This team was not good enough. Period. End of story. Stop trying to deflect it to the coaches because that's who you've decided to crusade against. They had two players in lineup that were considered two of the best players in the league during the regular season this past year and those players went MIA. Unless I missed something and Panarin and Zibanejad are now also the coaches, the coaches are not the ones responsible for the loss here.

 

And no. Quinn is not going to Hartford no matter how much you wish.

Quality of lineup sure is a factor, but so is the quality of coaching staff and system. People seem to always ignore that factor and just blame the players only.

I agree, but that sort of thing never happens in the NHL. Probably because setting a price for trading down from #1 that everyone is happy with is extremely hard.

I mean, what is your price for trading with Ottawa, for instance? If I'm Ottawa I'm definitely in two minds giving up 4 & 5 for #1. Lafreniere is very good, but is he better than Stutzle AND Perfetti? That's certainly debatable. If I'm the Rangers I probably take that deal. You can ask for #4 and Ottawas 1st next season, but that's not really in the Rangers best interests.

I also agree with the point on Rangers not really needing LW. You could possibly argue that being able to push Kreider to the 3rd line is exactly the sort of depth the Rangers need. It would be over paid depth, but it would be offset somewhat by Lafreniere being on his rookie deal. I mean, if Kreider is an unquestionable top 6 guy by the time Lafrienieres ELC is out we're probably not in a very good place anyway.

I dont know who posted it, but someone said rangers two 1st (if they win the lottery) for Ottawa?s two 1st. 1, 20(ish) for 3, 5? Seems fair. We take Rossi and Byfield and our center depth is fixed in one draft.

If we dont win the draft we take Lundell and we?re halfway there.

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

People seem to always ignore that factor and just blame the players only.

That's just not true at all.

I dont know who posted it, but someone said rangers two 1st (if they win the lottery) for Ottawa’s two 1st. 1, 20(ish) for 3, 5? Seems fair. We take Rossi and Byfield and our center depth is fixed in one draft.

 

If we dont win the draft we take Lundell and we’re halfway there.

 

 

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

It would be the most Rangers thing ever to trade the #1 overall, who is very close to being a lock as a franchise player, for picks on the basis of filling needs.

It would be the most Rangers thing ever to trade the #1 overall, who is very close to being a lock as a franchise player, for picks on the basis of filling needs.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk