Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Rangers Will be in on Patrick Kane


Phil

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, josh said:


dude, you are suggesting trading a 1st overall ++++++++ for a rental.

 

take your own advice, lol 

 

including Lafreniere in a Kane trade might be an all-time Worse take

In 94 they traded equivalent of Lafreniere, Kakko, and Chytil for Kane, Toews, and Kessel. And everybody whined, until they were all batshit drunk after the Stanley Cup win. 

 

Seriously if you think one player who can be replaced is more important than a Stanley Cup, vios con dios. 

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

In 94 they traded equivalent of Lafreniere, Kakko, and Chytil for Kane, Toews, and Kessel. And everybody whined, until they were all batshit drunk after the Stanley Cup win. 

 

Seriously if you think one player who can be replaced is more important than a Stanley Cup, vios con dios. 


they traded a first AND second overall pick? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

Amonte and Weight were way ahead of Laf and Kak in their development too.


true, to a point.

amonte had 2 30-goal seasons! When he was traded, but they didn’t need that. Same reason they moved Gartner. But this rangers squad has those roles filled so they shouldn’t have to move 1st

& 2nd overall picks for a rental.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what we're gonna need for the playoffs is a third line thats a threat...we already have plenty of of talent to fill out the top 6, but we'll need reinforcements if one of those lines gets shut down or goes cold. to the extent that you lose depth trading for kane, it may be a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pete said:

I have to be honest, the more I think about it the more I think that trading Lafreniere doesn't matter if you wind up with a cup, Kane and Othmann. 

 

I really think we're overreacting every time Lafreniere makes a competent hockey play... When I think about overall team makeup, if we lose him but add Othmann and Kane ... That's just an overall better team. 

The team will be overall better for half a season. Then significantly worse for the next 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are two games into the 2022-2023 season Lets we see how the rest of the year goes before we start trading for Kane. Who knows Laf, Kappo and Chytil all might make even greater improvement during this year’s regular season than they exhibited during last year’s playoffs run. So far that seems to be the case

Edited by CSNY1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CSNY1 said:

We are two games into the 2022-2023 season Lets we see how the rest of the year goes before we start trading for Kane. Who knows Laf, Kappo and Chytil all might make even greater improvement during this year’s regular season than they exhibited during last year’s playoffs run. So far that seems to be the case

I agree with this, too.

 

If Lafreniere (and Kakko) become the player everyone he thinks he will be, then you don't need Kane. If they are lighting it up, I certainly don't see the sense in sending them over for Kane.

 

My point mainly is that you're not getting Kane for a 25 point 3C, a bottom 4 prospect who didn't take a spot from Hajek, and a pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pete said:

That's quite the exaggeration, especially if you can keep Kane.

I would say that losing Laf for nothing (which it will be, we can't keep Kane) will make the team significantly worse in the future.

 

Wouldn't give a shit if we won a cup obviously, but that's far from a guarantee, even with Kane.

 

If you remove Chytil (7g, 9p) and Lafreniere (2g, 9p) the team would've looked a lot worse in last years playoffs. So the question is, how much better would Kane actually make this team? Would removing the effective 3rd line from last year just to make the 2nd line even better actually make the team overall much better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pete said:

I agree with this, too.

 

If Lafreniere (and Kakko) become the player everyone he thinks he will be, then you don't need Kane. If they are lighting it up, I certainly don't see the sense in sending them over for Kane.

 

My point mainly is that you're not getting Kane for a 25 point 3C, a bottom 4 prospect who didn't take a spot from Hajek, and a pick.


So to clarify:

 

If Lafreniere or Kakko are 35 pt players this year, then fair game for Kane?

 

If 60 pt players, not fair game?

 

Where’s the cutoff? 45-50 pts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

I would say that losing Laf for nothing (which it will be, we can't keep Kane) will make the team significantly worse in the future.

 

Wouldn't give a shit if we won a cup obviously, but that's far from a guarantee, even with Kane.

 

If you remove Chytil (7g, 9p) and Lafreniere (2g, 9p) the team would've looked a lot worse in last years playoffs. So the question is, how much better would Kane actually make this team? Would removing the effective 3rd line from last year just to make the 2nd line even better actually make the team overall much better?

Who's moving Lafreniere AND Chytil? 

 

And why are we talking about removing them, but not talking about what you're getting back?

 

How much better does Kane make the team? Depends on what the RW at the time of the TDL are giving you. If it's the same as last year (Nothing) then you get significantly better by adding Kane, who was not only a 90 point player but a 3x Cup winner and Conn Smythe winner. You can't quantify that experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rmc51 said:


So to clarify:

 

If Lafreniere or Kakko are 35 pt players this year, then fair game for Kane?

 

If 60 pt players, not fair game?

 

Where’s the cutoff? 45-50 pts?

 

That's a silly question and we both know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

And why are we talking about removing them, but not talking about what you're getting back?

Because in that situation (where we trade Laf+ for Kane) Laf will be "removed" with nothing coming back AFTER this season. Kane is a pure rental, we can't keep him.

 

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

How much better does Kane make the team? Depends on what the RW at the time of the TDL are giving you. If it's the same as last year (Nothing) then you get significantly better by adding Kane, who was not only a 90 point player but a 3x Cup winner and Conn Smythe winner. You can't quantify that experience.

I agree, and don't get me wrong, he definitely makes the team better. But if we're removing 2/3 of last playoffs 3rd line, we're making the team worse in the process of trying to make the team better.

 

I still think the offer I said is fair and is most likely what will happen:

1st

cond. 1st

two of: Kravtsov, Chytil, Robertson, Cuylle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Because in that situation (where we trade Laf+ for Kane) Laf will be "removed" with nothing coming back AFTER this season. Kane is a pure rental, we can't keep him.

 

That remains to be seen, and something I'm sure would be discussed before sending a player like Lafreniere the other way.

Quote

I agree, and don't get me wrong, he definitely makes the team better. But if we're removing 2/3 of last playoffs 3rd line, we're making the team worse in the process of trying to make the team better.

Again, no one said we should trade Lafreniere AND Chytil for Kane.

Quote

 

I still think the offer I said is fair and is most likely what will happen:

1st

cond. 1st

two of: Kravtsov, Chytil, Robertson, Cuylle

These players, today, are crap return for Kane.

 

All that said, the Hawks GM has been making crap deals, so who knows. My point is, if you can add a player of Kane's caliber, you don't let Lafreniere stop you.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's a silly question and we both know it.


Why? How are you gauging if they should

be fair game come deadline time or not?

 

FWIW if Kakko was a at 25 pts come deadline time and the Rangers are at the top of Metro, I have no hesitation dealing him for Kane. If he’s at 45 pts come deadline time, he’s off the table.

 

Why is this silly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pete said:

All that said, the Hawks GM has been making crap deals, so who knows. My point is, if you can add a player of Kane's caliber, you don't let Lafreniere stop you.

Well you do when he's 34 and only signed for 6 months.

 

Even if they could magically make it work to keep Kane for a few extra years I still wouldn't include Lafreniere. I just think it's a bad idea. Lafreniere is 21 years old, hopefully he got 12-15 really good years in him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Well you do when he's 34 and only signed for 6 months.

 

Even if they could magically make it work to keep Kane for a few extra years I still wouldn't include Lafreniere. I just think it's a bad idea. Lafreniere is 21 years old, hopefully he got 12-15 really good years in him.

Lafreniere's role is replaced by Othmann. Right now, he's blocked by CK and Panarin, and Othmann is blocked by Lafreniere.

 

Maybe you wouldn't make that trade, but I would 10/10 times because Kane+Cup+Othmann > Lafreniere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...