Phil Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 OK, I think I get what you are saying about Friedman. He has something to offer, in general. My point is his Ranger comment was pure "thinking" out loud, but not based on any new info. In other words, it was not a 'report' or journalism. It was speculation. The speculation on our UFAs is common sense. The speculation on Zuc and McD was him trying to be interesting, I guess because that is part of his job. I'm not agitated about the way he said it. I may be bothered by the idea that some think that segment was based on any inside info or even any legit info that the viewer did not already know. Sure. I can agree with all of this. But keep in mind that HNIC is a Canadian broadcast. When this kind of conjecture is brought up, it's to a predominantly Canadian audience who may or may not watch or follow the Rangers. It's designed to be a talking point, much like we speak about other rumors (say Player X, who the Rangers could use is on the block). Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Sure. I can agree with all of this. But keep in mind that HNIC is a Canadian broadcast. When this kind of conjecture is brought up, it's to a predominantly Canadian audience who may or may not watch or follow the Rangers. It's designed to be a talking point, much like we speak about other rumors (say Player X, who the Rangers could use is on the block). Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk It's also rarely, if ever, done without some merit. The Canadian market doesn't care about the Rangers and they wouldn't waste air time this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 OK, I think I get what you are saying about Friedman. He has something to offer, in general. My point is his Ranger comment was pure "thinking" out loud, but not based on any new info. In other words, it was not a 'report' or journalism. It was speculation. The speculation on our UFAs is common sense. The speculation on Zuc and McD was him trying to be interesting, I guess because that is part of his job. I'm not agitated about the way he said it. I may be bothered by the idea that some think that segment was based on any inside info or even any legit info that the viewer did not already know. Someone in Friedman's position is not going to jeopardize his reputation by guessing or throwing multiple things at the wall hoping something will stick. I'm all for good inside info, and I know some people here know some things, but like others, you'll need to prove it at least once before posters start to believe or trust you. I'm not doubting you, I'm just making a point. I'm not saying you're doing it, but someone can't claim "I know this or that will happen" without proof of it ever happening. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not calling you out or trying to argue, I'm explaining what will be perceived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 We should have Smith and Staal that should both be able to play a top 4 LHD spot. When Zucc brings grit, he's horrible. Thats the last thing he needs to do on the ice. I'm also not trading McDonagh for a D (redundant) or a 2nd line player. OK, we agree that McD needs to bring back something big, that we need. If Ranger mgmt thinks only Nylander will amount to that top line player (and disagree with me about Marner) then narrow that trade discussion to Nylander. However, I'm still on board with either. Forget Mathews and Toronto is trying to add D, so forget D. Zuc hopefully will always play with some fire. You trade him, you are trading leadership, scrappiness, and desire and points. Can you really argue that? We disagree on Staal, who is the first guy who needs to go in a rebuild. Just suspect we won't be able to move him currently. And right now I'm just hoping Smith can get back to playing better. Realistically, if he could be a real solid 3rd pair guy who can work well with a young guy like Pionk or Graves next year, I'd be happy. Those saying he sucked in Detroit did not watch Detroit enough. He had some ups and downs, but it was mostly criticism that he was not as effective on offense as was hoped. Especially cause he flashed offensive ability and was that in college. They offered him 3 mil for 3 years about a month before the trading deadline. This came from an interview with a member of the Wings front office that I heard first hand. So trade McD and here is our D next year. Skjei - HOLE HOLE - Shattenkirk (problem, not ideal) Smith (play either side) - our best D prospect (Graves, Pionk, DeAngelo, Gilmore or ?) Kampfer our 7th So what we have in best case scenario is giant holes at 1RHD and 2LHD and a pretty big problem at our 2RHD and hoping Dunny is wrong and one of those kids can step in at the 3rd pair and Smith regains most of his form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 It's also rarely, if ever, done without some merit. The Canadian market doesn't care about the Rangers and they wouldn't waste air time this way. Right. It's seed planting IMO. Even if nothing comes of it, how long before McDonagh to Toronto chatter starts buzzing (in the media, not just here)? Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Here's my questions: If the Rangers fall out of contention and sell off Nash, Grabs, Zuc, McD, and or others, does Lundqvist request a trade in the off season ? He wants to win, and his window is 5 years (I'm being generous), so why would he stay knowing the next 2 or 3 could be growing pains ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Someone in Friedman's position is not going to jeopardize his reputation by guessing or throwing multiple things at the wall hoping something will stick. I'm all for good inside info, and I know some people here know some things, but like others, you'll need to prove it at least once before posters start to believe or trust you. I'm not doubting you, I'm just making a point. I'm not saying you're doing it, but someone can't claim "I know this or that will happen" without proof of it ever happening. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not calling you out or trying to argue, I'm explaining what will be perceived. Mikey, not offended, just thinking you are missing my point. One that King and Morph later reiterated in this thread. Friedman was just opining, talking based on nothing but his ideas, not a source. Friedman was not jeopardizing his rep because he was just talking, not "reporting". Big difference. I am only referring to the clip posted in this thread. I am not claiming to know anything about what Ranger mgmt will do regarding the players mentioned. Without any inside knowledge, I've speculated all the same things he did about Nash, Grabs, DD and McD. I haven't speculated much on Zuc, but others here certainly have. That is all Friedman was doing. Many here have proven to have just as good an opinion about this as he does. Hey, we've been discussing it here for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 OK, we agree that McD needs to bring back something big, that we need. If Ranger mgmt thinks only Nylander will amount to that top line player (and disagree with me about Marner) then narrow that trade discussion to Nylander. However, I'm still on board with either. Forget Mathews and Toronto is trying to add D, so forget D. I'm not against getting Marner, but I havent seen enough of him this season. I'd hate to do it straight up and... have that blow up in our face. I like the idea of moving him to Toronto for a few reasons. They have some assets, obviously. They have picks. They have other players I like (Komorov). They're also a front runner for Tavares. McDonagh might tie up some of that cap space, while it frees us from some of ours. So if you are telling me my lineup could have Marner, Komorov, and Tavares next season, for the price of McDonagh? yes, please. Zuc hopefully will always play with some fire. You trade him, you are trading leadership, scrappiness, and desire and points. Can you really argue that? I dont want to trade him, no. I like what he brings, I like his contract, and think he'd re-sign with us at a decent rate. I'm only trading him for an extreme overpayment (same with any player, pick, prospect, etc. I'll trade anyone). We disagree on Staal, who is the first guy who needs to go in a rebuild. Just suspect we won't be able to move him currently. I dont think there are any takers. I dont want to attach a pick just so someone else takes him. He's been solid, and maybe he can keep that pace for a little longer. An overpaid 6th dman. I HATE dead cap space from buyouts or retaining salary on a trade. I'd rather overpay the player we have vs. buy out hit, plus replacement player cost, which is usually the same or more. And right now I'm just hoping Smith can get back to playing better. Realistically, if he could be a real solid 3rd pair guy who can work well with a young guy like Pionk or Graves next year, I'd be happy. Those saying he sucked in Detroit did not watch Detroit enough. He had some ups and downs, but it was mostly criticism that he was not as effective on offense as was hoped. Especially cause he flashed offensive ability and was that in college. They offered him 3 mil for 3 years about a month before the trading deadline. This came from an interview with a member of the Wings front office that I heard first hand. So trade McD and here is our D next year. Skjei - HOLE HOLE - Shattenkirk (problem, not ideal) Smith (play either side) - our best D prospect (Graves, Pionk, DeAngelo, Gilmore or ?) Kampfer our 7th So what we have in best case scenario is giant holes at 1RHD and 2LHD and a pretty big problem at our 2RHD and hoping Dunny is wrong and one of those kids can step in at the 3rd pair and Smith regains most of his form. I'm not too worried about the D. Our problem is compete level and consistency. Penguins won with a poor defense last season. And we should be able to expect 1 or 2 guys from within the current system step into a role next season. Skjei, Shattenkirk, Staal, Smith. Thats a solid 4, and potentially very good - if they play up to their abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Right. It's seed planting IMO. Even if nothing comes of it, how long before McDonagh to Toronto chatter starts buzzing (in the media, not just here)? Hmmm, well that was sorta the concern. Why should that chatter (Friedman's 25 second clip) have any merit, if it is not based on any journalistic principles. Just because people misunderstand that he was just "thinking" and draw incorrect conclusions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Here's my questions: If the Rangers fall out of contention and sell off Nash, Grabs, Zuc, McD, and or others, does Lundqvist request a trade in the off season ? He wants to win, and his window is 5 years (I'm being generous), so why would he stay knowing the next 2 or 3 could be growing pains ? Great question. He and Zucc are close, too. Can't feel great watching all your best friends get shipped out year after year. If he doesn't request a deal I also wonder how amenable he'd be to accepting a trade? For example, Pete and I were chatting last night and he wondered if he'd ever accept a deal to a team like Calgary who have a number of ducks in a row but unreliable goaltending. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Here's my questions: If the Rangers fall out of contention and sell off Nash, Grabs, Zuc, McD, and or others, does Lundqvist request a trade in the off season ? He wants to win, and his window is 5 years (I'm being generous), so why would he stay knowing the next 2 or 3 could be growing pains ? Depends on the returns. They can still trade those guys and upgrade the roster. If thats the case, cool. I dont see Henrik leaving. I've said the Rangers have a 4 year window. Lundqvist, Staal, Shattenkirk, Smith all come off the books in 4 years (and so does everyone else besides Zib). Chytil and Andersson can still have an impact in that window. It might not be "all in" this season, but it will be within the next few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Great question. He and Zucc are close, too. Can't feel great watching all your best friends get shipped out year after year. If he doesn't request a deal I also wonder how amenable he'd be to accepting a trade? For example, Pete and I were chatting last night and he wondered if he'd ever accept a deal to a team like Calgary who have a number of ducks in a row but unreliable goaltending. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk No chance. I dont see it. I dont see him taking the Bourque route. He seems like a "I'm going to win it here, or I'm not going to win it". That only changes if shit gets really, really bad... or it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 I mean I felt the same, but who knows? Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Here's my questions: If the Rangers fall out of contention and sell off Nash, Grabs, Zuc, McD, and or others, does Lundqvist request a trade in the off season ? He wants to win, and his window is 5 years (I'm being generous), so why would he stay knowing the next 2 or 3 could be growing pains ? Well, as you say, the Rangers always try to win. Even if Gorton does go full fire sale mode, do you think he or ownership is content with being in the basement for the next hand full of years? Will they still be able to attract free agents the summer after said fire sale? Tavares, JVR, John Carlson all potential free agents this summer and still in their 20's. Panarin, Jeff Skinner, Seguin all potential free agents the summer after and still in their 20's. If you can sign 3 or 4 of those guys, get a couple top prospects/young nhl talent from Zuc and McD trades and half your 1st rounders pan out they'll still be competitive before Hank is finished. That's a lot of ifs though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 No. But that's the point about strategically selling specific players. Particularly McDonagh, Zuccarello, and/or Miller. They can net such a haul that you have to consider it, even if you don't pull the trigger. The Rangers probably don't need to suck shit for the next two to four seasons. One, done right, can quickly right the ship. It's been a while since, but the Flyers did exactly this way back when the season before the drafted JvR. They went from like dead last to playoff team in a single offseason because they were strategic about it, including free agency. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 I'm not too worried about the D. Our problem is compete level and consistency. Penguins won with a poor defense last season. And we should be able to expect 1 or 2 guys from within the current system step into a role next season. Skjei, Shattenkirk, Staal, Smith. Thats a solid 4, and potentially very good - if they play up to their abilities. Well I was feelin ya, until the above. I'm very worried about our D this year and the next few years. Do we have any bonafide prospects with Top 4 potential? If not, how can you not worry? You name Skjei (a promotion) and 3 guys who look like bottom pair defenders and want us to be comfortable, just cause of last year's Pitt D? You are missing 3 of your top 4. Ok let's say Shatty learns D or Smith takes up distance running and one can play on the 2nd pair. Still 2 huge holes. We don't have the horses to support a shitty blueline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Well I was feelin ya, until the above. I'm very worried about our D this year and the next few years. Do we have any bonafide prospects with Top 4 potential? If not, how can you not worry? You name Skjei (a promotion) and 3 guys who are all performing like 3rd pairing players and want us to be comfortable, just cause of last year's Pitt D? not worried. *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Skjei, Shattenkirk, Smith, Staal can work. It's just a longshot based on how they're playing right now. When Staal is the best defender in that group, something?many things even?are not right. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Mikey, not offended, just thinking you are missing my point. One that King and Morph later reiterated in this thread. Friedman was just opining, talking based on nothing but his ideas, not a source. Friedman was not jeopardizing his rep because he was just talking, not "reporting". Big difference. I am only referring to the clip posted in this thread. I am not claiming to know anything about what Ranger mgmt will do regarding the players mentioned. Without any inside knowledge, I've speculated all the same things he did about Nash, Grabs, DD and McD. I haven't speculated much on Zuc, but others here certainly have. That is all Friedman was doing. Many here have proven to have just as good an opinion about this as he does. Hey, we've been discussing it here for months. I understand all of that, but how do you/we know he isn't throwing it out there based on sources? I'm not saying anything is definite one way or another, I'm just saying it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 No. But that's the point about strategically selling specific players. Particularly McDonagh, Zuccarello, and/or Miller. They can net such a haul that you have to consider it, even if you don't pull the trigger. The Rangers probably don't need to suck shit for the next two to four seasons. One, done right, can quickly right the ship. It's been a while since, but the Flyers did exactly this way back when the season before the drafted JvR. They went from like dead last to playoff team in a single offseason because they were strategic about it, including free agency. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk That kinda illustrates my apprehension. They made the finals after that in 2009/2010. Then they tried to do it again when the traded Carter and Richards and have sucked since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 That kinda illustrates my apprehension. They made the finals after that in 2009/2010. Then they tried to do it again when the traded Carter and Richards and have sucked since. Carter and Richards were traded for non hockey related issues. That room was divided. They needed to go. Also, the year they made the finals they had to beat us on the last game of the year just to earn a playoff spot. Which illustrates "any given Sunday". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 I understand all of that, but how do you/we know he isn't throwing it out there based on sources? I'm not saying anything is definite one way or another, I'm just saying it's possible. I guess it is possible, but listening to the clip he framed it in such a way that it was more reactionary speculation coming off another big loss. He says, "after getting lit-up by Barzal and the Islanders earlier, I think the Ranger are starting to look and say are there other moves we can make similar to the one we made with Step during the draft... i think they are taking a look at their UFAs, Nash, Grab, DD, but I think also some of their contracted players Zuc McD, no guarantee they do it, but i think they are willing to listen." He is speculating, why would a source talk in future tense like "starting" "willing". And the 25 seconds is littered with I think. Hardly the framing I'd use if I had heard something from a source. Nor would it be honest. And I THINK he was being honest. These are his thoughts. I take him at his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 I think the way he's speaking implies he knows something, but that's just me. If he had said "I believe the Rangers *should* look at other moves" - that's one thing. He believes they are, which implies knowledge. Unless, of course, he makes a habit of going on tv and guessing what people are doing -- which is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 I think the way he's speaking implies he knows something, but that's just me. If he had said "I believe the Rangers *should* look at other moves" - that's one thing. He believes they are, which implies knowledge. Unless, of course, he makes a habit of going on tv and guessing what people are doing -- which is not the case. I think it's just a matter of how you want to read into it. It could go either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Hence why it's important to discuss. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.