Fatfrancesa

From what I saw of fox at the wjc, I went to the one in Montreal when the us won gold, I didn’t like his game. Granted it was years ago and you’re judging kids but I listened to the hype and just couldn’t see it myself. I saw a risk taking player who had skill but a questionable understanding of situational hockry and decision making. I found myself cursing his play throughout the semi vs Russia and the gold medal game against Canada. He had no tie with the rangers so I wasn’t watching him intently, he just kept becoming noticeable to me by his mistakes. Those games were as intense as any ranger playoff game for me and him above all players left me disgusted with his game. I know it means little and he’s had three years of growth since then. What concerns me is that people raved about his game then and I thought he sucked hard in the little I saw of him. So the raves I hear now are s little hard to believe. At least I will wait to see what he looks like today. Matt gilroy May very well be a great comparison here. I hope not

I would seriously think about taking spencer knight if he’s still on the board with the Winnipeg or possible Dallas pick. I know it wouldn’t be popular. However he supposedly the best goalie prospect in years and rivals price and fleury in their draft years. While I get that the rangers seem to be well stocked at goalie, why not take a guy who further guarantees the most important position will be in good hands for the next decade and beyond. Furthermore having a capable goalie on an elc betters the chances of putting the best team together for a cup run. Also in the years to come one of the goalies can win the job and leave the rangers with a great asset to trade to fill other holes. We all agree that late first round picks are somewhat of a crap shoot. This guy doesn’t seem to be, it’s just that teams are reluctant to spend a first on a goalie. When you have so many picks you have the ability to spend one on a player that won’t bear fruit for years. If he really is as good as everyone says wouldn’t that be a good insurance policy to invest in?

The 2020 second rounder is what hurts

Massive no. Overpay yes. Carolina was trading a player who was not signing with them. He was gone for nothing. It’s the worst kept secret that he wanted to go to the rangers, which further decreases Carolinas leverage. Being that other teams around the league needed a guarantee he would sign with them in order to trade for him. Jimmy Vesey was in the same situation with Nashville, he was traded to buffalo for a third. Hopefully Fox is much better than Vesey but at the time Vesey was a big prospect too. I like adding fox. It would just be nice for once just once to take advantage of the leverage we have. Gorton failed in getting a top prospect out of tampa for McDonough. St. Louis demanded a trade to only the rangers and we gave up two first round picks. When the shoe is on the other foot with hagelin and talbot we seem to get peanuts. It just seems to me like the rangers have the worst poker face in the business. It’s not a huge deal but it would be nice to use the leverage when we have it. As far as a fair deal goes considering the predicament Carolina was in the 38yh pick alone should have sufficed. The pick in 2020 is the worry. It’s a loaded draft and a high second in that draft maybe better than the Winnipeg pick this year. If you ask me I’d rather give them the Winnipeg pick and not two 2nds mainly because of the 2020 one.

Oof. Why do we always overpay when seemingly having the leverage.

Conditional is what?

I’ve heard on nhl Sirius radio over the past month or so that panarin has an apartment in nyc and a home in Miami. Anyone know if that is true?

That would be great if true

Ok I thought he was lining up there all series.

I’m not sure and I also don’t know their cap situation. I do know that the fan base and the team while being initially disappointed with him have now grown to like the player for what he is. He actually is a good third line center. He plays in the high traffic areas, is an impactful forechecker and all around intangible player capable of chipping in on the offense. There were multiple times when zucc was rumored straight up for him the past two years and the indications were that Calgary seemed that was insufficient. So if that is true what would they ask for? I’m not sure kreider works because that would be more than likely a 1 year rental. They have a solid defense and good prospect depth at that position. So I think your looking at a forward, prospects or picks. Buchnevich straight up maybe? Andersson? No thanks if I’m the rangers but I think that’s where they start. Of course if the rangers would take Neal back the price would drop significantly. I don’t see a fit but if Gorton could find a palatable deal I’m sll for it.

Ok. I’m agreeing with you. What I’m not seeing is the reason why Calgary would want to deal him unless you are giving up assets I’m pretty sure no one wants to part with. He’s a very valuable player right now. He has all the upside you talk about and he’s relatively cheap and young. I’m totally on board to trying to get him. If I’m Calgary why am I trading him? What are you offering?

I don’t think they’ve soured on him at all. He won’t live up to the hype of where he was picked but he’s become an important player for that team. Obviously they would move him but it would cost.

Conner, Myers, trouba, Tanev, chariot, and laine among others need new contracts. Conner $6-7m a season Trouba. $7-8m Myers $6-7m Laine $9-10m Taney, chariot and Hayes walk. Even then laine, Conner, and Myers make up more than that. So yes they have cap problems

Bird in the hand. Lol

They have cap issues. Doubt they make any move that doesn’t help address that.

They do when the point is players of this caliber never become ufas. How do we know another karlsson will be available three years from now? Bird in the hand. All he costs is money.

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?

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.

Signing panarin doesn’t fix the biggest problem which is the defense. Signing panarin doesn’t fix the second biggest problem, a center to play 2nd line minutes and matchups. Forcing the kids into that role can go great with somebody stepping up but it can Lso be a burden on them if it goes bad. For the 100th time dzingel was brought up because others needed another person to sign if not one of the big 2. I’m perfectly fine with not signing anyone. That is not trying to lose. It’s trying to avoid the cap crunch that is coming in three years.

What? Haven’t you heard the rangers are one signing from being in the eastern conference finals.

Roope hintz

Just curious though, how many rangers have endorsement deals? Hank sure but who else? I don’t remember leetch and messier having much. Jagr? Gaborik?

Depends on you definition of working. I can see them playing well here for a couple of years. To me this all hinges on years 4-7 though. Those are the years in which it’s realistic to expect contending. I will 100% honest I have no idea what panarin or ek will look like then. It’s possible they are better than today. It’s possible. I’m just not comfortable with making that gamble to me for no reason. I’m not against signing ufas ever. I’m against long term deals at this point where this team stands today. Depending on how the team progresses that can change.

What’s worse is that you can’t even concede that there is any chance of it not working. The reason is because to admit that you must try and rationalize the effects a contract like that would have in those circumstances. It’s a waste a time to discuss this any further. I totally disagree with you. Take solace in that you will get your man. I look forward to the next guy they have to have. Something like St. Louis, yandle, Staal. Kind of like how we got here in the first place. Difference is those didn’t last a decade.