Fatfrancesa

Then what? He becomes a terrible hockey player? I don't see it happening. I agree about the injury concerns, but that's the only reason I'm skeptical.

 

 

That should be enough of a reason to say no. You are in the infancy of a rebuild and you admittedly agree to injury concerns to a 29 year old yet have no problem handing him $12m for 7 seasons. That should be gm malpractice. The risk is crippling, like Staal and shattenkirk on steroids. I guess you could always buy him out and have dead cap space for a decade. That wouldn’t be a problem would it?

 

Duncan Keith was a great player too. What happened to him?

 

Bottom line is. If you’re wrong they are fucked. If I’m wrong nothing happens. They just continue to take the positive steps they are taking and hopefully the next time an impact player is available our young core is ready to justify the risk.

Just so I’m clear on what you guys are saying. You are already sold on chytil. Based on what? I see potential but he’s been nowhere close to a consistent player no less an impactful one. Totally acceptable and understandable being he’s 19. However he’s far from a guarantee and he’s probably a couple years away from being if all goes well an impact player on a consistent basis.

 

The 2nd pick and Kravtsov are complete unknowns not in talent but in readiness. They may seemlessly come in next year or they like chytil could take time. It is possible. If it does take time how good is this team even with adding those two ufas? If we are all in agreement that three years is a probable timeframe for contending if things go right. Then why does it seem so far fetched to worry that two guys in their 30’s might regress by that time? Why does anyone believe that they will be the last impact players ever available? Nobody knows that. It’s also not a must to have to sign a big time ufa at some point to win. It’s far more likely to build your team organically and add those guys as rentals when the year is right.

 

As far as dzingel goes, people asked for another option because they just can’t do nothing major. I’d rather not sign him or Hayes either unless four years is ok with them.

 

And Phil I understand you will figure out the cap later if these guys need to get paid three four years from now. However your point in signing these guys is because you believe in the young guys and their trajectory. Well if they do meet expectations there is going to be a problem because these two ufas will be making $24m of the cap and they aren’t signing without a ntc. Which would mean you maybe losing some early 20’splayrs for two guys in their 30’s and on downsides of their careers.

 

Doing this is like putting ourselves in the blackhawks shoes without the cups. They had to pay Toews, Kane, seabrook, and Keith because of their success. Only Kane now isn’t a drag on that franchise. The other three and their cap hit is directly responsible for their fall into the abyss.

 

You guys could be right. I totally admit that. Both guys could play 7 great years. All these prospects could all hit. There is never another good ufa ever. All is possible. Myself I’m just not ready to throw all the chips in the middle right now. This is the rangers we are talking about here. You really think those contracts aren’t going to burn us. If they do you are killing this rebuild in its crib.

Minn was up and coming? Kakao, Kravtsov, Chytil > Granlund, Niederreiter, Coyle.

 

Their leading scorer every year had about 60 points. Praise in 7 years in NJ had 2 years over 70. Panarin has never been under 70. Meanwhile Zibanejad > Koivu.

 

Has Suter not been good in Minn? 2nd, 4th, 9th, 8th, 5th, 13th in Norris voting every year he's been there.

 

Adding a 2 time Norris trophy winner would be great for Hajek, Rykov, DeAngelo, Miller, Lundkvist, and Reunanen.

 

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

 

Yes they were up and coming. None of the guys you mention on the ranger side of prospects have done squat in the nhl. The other guys have had careers yet that doesn’t take away of what they were thought to be at the time. Zibanejad is the only proven. Which is the entire point. You guys are looking to spend like your contending and most of the core guys you want to count on can’t legally drink and have had zero nhl success. The

 

Hey maybe Columbus though really is the bar for all contending teams.

I get the trepidation, but the guys they have been burned by are of the Redden/Gomez/Drury/Richards variety. Those guys are not on the same plane as Panarin/Karlsson. It is far more equivalent to looking at the acquisition of Jagr or to a lesser degree Gaborik, in terms of talent level, and both were successes on broadway.

 

It goes past just those guys. Everyone wanted parise too. Thank god he went home. Nobody worries about 4-5 years from now. You should because that should be this squads coming of age time. It will be a shame if they are anchored by contracts that helped at a time when they had no chance. Why risk the future for little chance now? I don’t get it. Why rush into this shit. Another thing. Kakko is great get but he’s still a child. Literally. He’s not the messiah. He’s a proper piece to build around. A proper piece who won’t be in his prime for years. Again. Years. Yes that’s right, years from now. It makes no sense to sign guys to contracts that will be in decline when our core is just entering their primes.

This is a false equivalency. We're talking about adding Panarin and Karlsson to supplement Chytil, Kravtsov, Kakko/Hughes, Zib and Krieder.

 

Minnesota at the time of signing sited and parise were an up and coming team. If anything they were further along then the rangers are now. But again which team won the cup buying their main pieces?

How many times have the rangers been burned in free agency? What do they say about not learning from your mistakes?

 

Rangerstown. Where the only way to travel is the short yellow bus.

By this logic no one should ever re-sign a player. Everybody should be out of the league after their first contract.

 

Yup that’s what I’m saying. He’s almost 30. He played 50 games this year. He’s had multiple injuries in his past. Nobody would offer a player $11m for 7 years based on 50 games. He is going to get paid based on his past. Debating his future is what matters. That’s what you are paying for.

 

People here are basically asking the rangers to copy the Minnesota Wild model. They want to buyout past stupid signings only to hurry up and sign a new one. Then argue that’s it’s not likely that it will happen again. It’s more rare that it actually works when signing a deal of that magnitude. Also is there a team ever that has won a cup while acquiring their franchise players by ufa? I’m just asking because I can’t think of any

There is literally nothing to suggest you’ll be paying for what he did in the past though.

He’s been outstanding this year.

 

This year is the past year. Key word, past.

Nobody ever thinks it’s a mistake until they sign the player and then realize that they still need more and the player they signed is being paid for what they did in the past instead of what their future is going to be.

That's probably also true. They certainly tried. We know that much on Makar (Brooks has since confirmed). From what I've been told, had eyes for Pettersson and Glass, too.

 

Told by whom? Just curious

Alright well since you're cherry picking, I'll list his players that played a major role for the Rangers:

 

Artem Anisimov, Carl Hagelin, Derek Stepan, Chris Kreider, Jesper Fast, J. T. Miller, Pavel Buchnevich, Del Zotto, Skjei (none of which are 4th liners)

Between, 2006 and 2017 the Rangers had 6 first round picks, one of which died. Out of the other five, only one was above spot 19.

 

He's also drafted: Lias Andersson, Filip Chytil, Morgan Barron, Vitali Kravtsov, K'Andre Miller, Nils Lundkvist, Igor Shestyorkin, Tarmo Reunanen, and Joey Keane -- all players who show incredible promise.

 

Yes, he missed on McIlrath. But that was NINE years ago. One fuck up does not make you bad at your job.

 

Not to mention, every armchair scout on this board wanted Wahlstrom last year while Kravstov was just ranked the best NHL prospect a few months ago.

I wanted Dobson or Bouchard but still Kravtsov looks good. Still time will tell.

I thought the rangers wanted makar.

For the same reason we can't bank on Shestyorkin?

 

And if that’s your reasoning why are you trading Georgiev? Another ridiculous argument here. Obviously those who want to trade him don’t believe he’s any good. Yet they want to package him with pionk and presto there is some retarded gm that is going to give you a first for that trash. The premise of the entire conversation is ludicrous. Some team should be convinced by 40 games that he’s the real deal yet those who want to trade him aren’t at all convinced of anything. If you actually think he’s good why the hell would you trade him? Shestyorkin is unproven, you’re right, just like knight, yet the rangers should trade away Georgiev and rely on an unproven goalie. Yet you’re reasoning to why another team would make the deal is so not to rely on an unproven goalie? Do you see the hypocrisy in your points.

 

Just come out and say it? You don’t think Georgiev is any good yet maybe some idiot will fall for his last two months and trade us a nice piece.

Georgiev, Krieder, Jets pick, and a 2nd maybe.

 

If they’re dealing up in the draft though , they don’t need to go top-10. If they dealt a package to move into say, 11-16ish, that would work too.

 

For example, Florida has pick 13. They need a goalie. Maybe you find a partner there.

The jets pick is Sonewhere between 22-24 right now if no conference final. So we are going to trade that pick, kreider, Georgiev and a 2nd to move up to 13?

Why would a team trade a late first for Georgiev when they can just draft knight with that pick?

Too many video games

Big fan of Newhook myself. He’s probably some years away but he’s a really good prospect. Also a big fan of Pelletier although I think he’s a wing.

By most accounts I’ve seen is that he has an accurate shot but all in all if he has a weakness it’s his shot. His release and power need improvement. He’s 18 and he’s not a finished product. His compete level is through the charts as is his hockey smarts. Like most young players he has work to be done defensively. Basically the things he needs to improve are all easily attainable.

 

This is the best 24 hours for rangers hockey maybe since 94. Myself Hughes is the better prospect if both meet their ceilings. Kakko is the safer bet though. Either way there is nothing but excitement with whomever they get.

 

Lastly this news only solidifies my option of avoiding the big contract this summer. I know others see it the other way. Everything is progressing nicely and the future is bright. Armed with cap space and an abundance of high end prospects the rangers should sign that top flight ufa when they are better informed to what their needs are. As of today if Kakko is their man the money should be spent at center and defense. Again as of today, a lot can change and most certainly it will. It never hurts to just add talent. But the cap is real. And hopefully three years from now we are resigning our franchise player who is 21 to a massive contract. And hopefully not at the cost of some of our other really good young players because we spent wildly this summer. Patience please. Maybe this is a sign that the rangers can build like other teams and not always be the aggressive big spenders.

We will be reading plenty in the weeks to come that the devils may choose Kakko instead of Hughes. The gap has been closing monthly. Kakko is playing in the worlds against men while Hughes is playing in the under 18’s. If Kakko has a good tournament it will be a toss up in the end I think Hughes goes 1 because he’s a center and the devils will be terrified of passing on him only to see him as a ranger. In all honesty I’m glad we are 2 it puts it out of our hands to screw up and either way we get a really good player.

For starters cap space

I know it’s speculation but articles are appearing that macdavid may ask in private to be moved.

The rangers should have a plan in place with how they want to build their team and targets both in the draft and around the league in which to achieve that team. Missing out on one player hopefully isn’t reason to have to scrap whatever plan they have. That plan should have been in place long before they knew panarin would reach free agency. Yet you are probably right they have no other plan. It’s exactly this dysfunction that has led to one cup in 75 years.

If rumors are to believed panarin maybe more concerned with lifestyle than he is with how good the team is. Supposedly Florida is hot for him and surely that team is closer to contending and no state tax. Not sure if Miami has a large Russian population but it will be interesting if he has any feelings for them. Speculation for almost a year is that the rangers are a forgone conclusion.

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

 

Isn’t that the point of having 8-9 first round picks in three years? The idea is to draft and develop them.

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.

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