Brooks Rangers Will be in on Patrick Kane

[jsm7302]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Othmann no. 

 

Kakko yes. 

Im keeping Kakko and sending Laf the other way if I had to choose. Tough to even consider it BUT CK and Panarin are going to be the core that goes for it for the next three years. If Laf brings in Kane and we have Kane and Kakko in our top 6, we aren't doing too bad. Sending Kakko slots who into that role? Krav? We are just spinning in circles of developing prospects at that point.

 

Panarin-Chytil-Kane

CK-Zib-Kakko

Goodrow-Trochek-Vesey

Blais-Brodzinski-Krav

 

This makes tons of sense to me.

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

It's really crazy actually. An established NHL'er that's been playing really good, even if his points total doesn't indicate that at the moment vs a late 2nd rounder that's been kind of struggling in the AHL. Kakko is only 1 year older as well.

 

There's no guarantee Cuylle will even be anything close to that. Kakko's floor is probably around Cuylle's ceiling.

 

Considering people look at him as a bust and only takes his points total into considerations, I'm pretty sure his best value is not in a trade. His trade value doesn't reflect his actual value at the moment because everyone is so disappointed because of lack of production relative to his draft position.

 

He's signed for 2mill for this and the next season. Even if he's only a middle-6 35p guy that's great value.

Nah, it's not crazy at all. People look too much at draft pedigree. If he wasn't drafted number 2 overall, nobody would care about trading him.

 

It's all about what you think he can be here, and as long as GG is here, it ain't going to be much more than what he is now.

 

It's also completely irrelevant if Cullye ceiling is Kakko floor. He's been on the floor since he was drafted. 

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

Im keeping Kakko and sending Laf the other way if I had to choose. Tough to even consider it BUT CK and Panarin are going to be the core that goes for it for the next three years. If Laf brings in Kane and we have Kane and Kakko in our top 6, we aren't doing too bad. Sending Kakko slots who into that role? Krav? We are just spinning in circles of developing prospects at that point.

 

Panarin-Chytil-Kane

CK-Zib-Kakko

Goodrow-Trochek-Vesey

Blais-Brodzinski-Krav

 

This makes tons of sense to me.

Oh, I agree with moving on from Laf before Kakko. I just don't really think anybody would want him. Kakko has more value. 

[Long live the King]

We're talking about adding Kane to fill a hole on RW.  You can't send a roster RW back in the deal.  Especially if Kakko continues this recent run (4 goals and 6 points in the last 6).  I like Cuylle, but he's got just as much a chance to be Gauthier as he does to become a quality NHL 3rd liner. 

 

If we're adding Kane it's to load up for a cup run.  You need Kakko for that and the only future off the table is Othmann. 

[Pete]

Just now, Long live the King said:

We're talking about adding Kane to fill a hole on RW.  You can't send a roster RW back in the deal.  Especially if Kakko continues this recent run (4 goals and 6 points in the last 6).  I like Cuylle, but he's got just as much a chance to be Gauthier as he does to become a quality NHL 3rd liner. 

 

If we're adding Kane it's to load up for a cup run.  You need Kakko for that and the only future off the table is Othmann. 

There's not much behind that. 

[jsm7302]

Just now, Pete said:

Oh, I agree with moving on from Laf before Kakko. I just don't really think anybody would want him. Kakko has more value. 

Kakko definitely seems to possess more skill and ability as he is progressing through development. Laf seems redundant on this roster. Another argument I'll make for addressing organizational needs at draft time as opposed to BPA. Blah blah Laf was the undeniable #1. I get it but he has been blocked since day one with NMC's at LW. Sell high. He was never expected to be a franchise player. This is the perfect scenario to grow our team from our choice of choosing BPA.

 

Laf and Colorado's first for Kaner. I bet they'd do it.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

It's also completely irrelevant if Cullye ceiling is Kakko floor. He's been on the floor since he was drafted. 

It's highly relevant when you claim Cuylle is more important than Kakko.

  

Just now, Pete said:

There's not much behind that. 

No, but that's how it usually is for teams that's "going for it". They don't have high level prospects waiting. We have two 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd + 2024 draft picks. You make a package with picks + whatever B level prospect they want (Kravtsov, Cuylle, Jones, Robertson). That's usually how packages for rentals work.

[Art20c]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

Oh, I agree with moving on from Laf before Kakko. I just don't really think anybody would want him. Kakko has more value. 

Agreed 100%

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

Ranger fans with prospects

 

 

Don't give up Kakko or Laf because you have Othmann and Cuylle 

 

 

[Pete]

Just now, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

Ranger fans with prospects

 

 

Don't give up Kakko or Laf because you have Othmann and Cuylle 

 

 

That's.... Not why. 

[Pete]

20 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

It's highly relevant when you claim Cuylle is more important than Kakko.

Sure, if you pull it completely out of context and just use one sentence, like you just did.

 

That seems to be an epidemic around here. 

[BrooksBurner]

As underwhelming as Laf has been relative to his draft position, he is averaging 17 goals a season all at even strength on 14 min a game. Zero PP goals for obvious reasons. Solid PP time and he’s probably pushing 20-25 goals on the regular, and that’s at his current level of play. His conditioning is pretty crappy, but fixable. I understand potentially trading him, but you don’t do it for a 34 y.o. expiring contract. Being able to re-sign Kane doesn’t matter. You can do that for free in July.

 

There’s a trend with these kinds of players like Kane at the deadline, and that is there are rarely bluechip prospects or significant roster players going the other way.

[RangersIn7]

18 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

As underwhelming as Laf has been relative to his draft position, he is averaging 17 goals a season all at even strength on 14 min a game. Zero PP goals for obvious reasons. Solid PP time and he’s probably pushing 20-25 goals on the regular, and that’s at his current level of play. His conditioning is pretty crappy, but fixable. I understand potentially trading him, but you don’t do it for a 34 y.o. expiring contract. Being able to re-sign Kane doesn’t matter. You can do that for free in July.

 

There’s a trend with these kinds of players like Kane at the deadline, and that is there are rarely bluechip prospects or significant roster players going the other way.

This 100.

 

I don’t like the idea of giving up the next X amount of years of LaFreniere or Kakko for maybe 14 weeks of Kane.

And they shouldn’t have to. That’s entirely too high a price for a rental. 
 

Now if a bidding war erupts, then all bets are off…. But given he has a full-NMC, im

not sure how high it could escalate. 

[mbob]

1 hour ago, jsm7302 said:

Im keeping Kakko and sending Laf the other way if I had to choose. Tough to even consider it BUT CK and Panarin are going to be the core that goes for it for the next three years. If Laf brings in Kane and we have Kane and Kakko in our top 6, we aren't doing too bad. Sending Kakko slots who into that role? Krav? We are just spinning in circles of developing prospects at that point.

 

Panarin-Chytil-Kane

CK-Zib-Kakko

Goodrow-Trochek-Vesey

Blais-Brodzinski-Krav

 

This makes tons of sense to me.

 

And adding Othman next year at LW.  I'd prefer this years trade bait be Krav, picks and Blais but if it comes to Kakko and Laf think I';m right there with you giving Laf new scenery. 

[josh]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Conveniently leaving out the rest of it. If you're going to quote me, don't cherry pick. And just man up and quote me with the link to my post so everybody can read what I actually said, and not your butchering of it. 

Where you were talking about a 29 year old, not a 34 year old??

 

i can’t post quotes from other threads on this new format 

[Pete]

50 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

As underwhelming as Laf has been relative to his draft position, he is averaging 17 goals a season all at even strength on 14 min a game. Zero PP goals for obvious reasons. Solid PP time and he’s probably pushing 20-25 goals on the regular, and that’s at his current level of play. His conditioning is pretty crappy, but fixable. I understand potentially trading him, but you don’t do it for a 34 y.o. expiring contract. Being able to re-sign Kane doesn’t matter. You can do that for free in July.

 

There’s a trend with these kinds of players like Kane at the deadline, and that is there are rarely bluechip prospects or significant roster players going the other way.

We really have to stop talking about what these kids are going to do with PP time they're not going to get for another 3-4 years. It doesn't matter.

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, josh said:

Where you were talking about a 29 year old, not a 34 year old??

 

i can’t post quotes from other threads on this new format 

5-10 180 pound players who use their body as a wrecking ball. If that didn't make it into the original post, my bad and I shouldn't have jumped down your throat, but there's an obvious wear and tear difference.

 

Again, guy just had a 96 point season. Even if his fastball goes from 95-75...That's still more than you're ever going to get from Kakko on this team, with it's contracts, as currently constructed.

 

He is not going to get PP time. He's been tried in the top 6 with mixed results. He's the ADA of forwards. It doesn't matter what he does on another team, with different opportunities, because he was never going to get that here.

[LindG1000]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

We really have to stop talking about what these kids are going to do with PP time they're not going to get for another 3-4 years. It doesn't matter.

 

If our PP1 continues to be super predictable and therefore, eventually, super defendable, we're going to need to give PP2 and thus the kids more ice time. 

That said - I think you're right to stop comparing these kids to players getting leash on advantaged time, and Laf, Chytil, and Kakko have all been rather strong ES players this season. It seems foolish to move our strong ES players to improve our strength at ES, no?

 

I also think @rmc51's point around what players like Kane get at the deadline is really important. I have no idea why we're talking about moving Laf, Kakko, Chytil, or Othmann when these sorts of players never get included in trades for deadline rentals - doubly so with the massive cap crunch across the league and Kane's still-restrictive 2.5M-ish hit at the deadline. 

 

Between precedent, a lack of real competition in the market (there are literally 10 teams capable of acquiring Kane at the TDL right now and seven of them are either absolutely not in the playoffs or are the Blackhawks themselves), and the market not being a sellers market at all, I just don't see a reason why we're engaging in conversation around moving a well-pedigreed prospect in the deal. 

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

If our PP1 continues to be super predictable and therefore, eventually, super defendable, we're going to need to give PP2 and thus the kids more ice time. 

That said - I think you're right to stop comparing these kids to players getting leash on advantaged time, and Laf, Chytil, and Kakko have all been rather strong ES players this season. It seems foolish to move our strong ES players to improve our strength at ES, no?

 

I also think @rmc51's point around what players like Kane get at the deadline is really important. I have no idea why we're talking about moving Laf, Kakko, Chytil, or Othmann when these sorts of players never get included in trades for deadline rentals - doubly so with the massive cap crunch across the league and Kane's still-restrictive 2.5M-ish hit at the deadline. 

 

Between precedent, a lack of real competition in the market (there are literally 10 teams capable of acquiring Kane at the TDL right now and seven of them are either absolutely not in the playoffs or are the Blackhawks themselves), and the market not being a sellers market at all, I just don't see a reason why we're engaging in conversation around moving a well-pedigreed prospect in the deal. 

When Owen Tippet went for Giroux, I don't know why you think our players would be any more special. 

[LindG1000]

Just now, Pete said:

When Owen Tippet went for Giroux, I don't know why you think our players would be any more special. 

 

Because Tippett isn't that special either. We also have a hilariously underachieving RW top 10 pick from 4 drafts ago that isn't on the list - not to mention that Philly sent an underachieving former 1st to Florida in that deal too (German Rubtsov). 

 

We should learn from situations like MSL or Giroux to not overpay GMs to move players - even very good ones - when the destinations are severely limited. This is one of those cases, and we should hold firm on Kravtsov and a 1st as the core of an offer. 

[LindG1000]

Just for what it's worth - the "analogous" trade here is something like...

 

Kane at 50%, Boris Katchouk, Alex Vlasic or something, and a 5th for Kravtsov, a 2025 1st,  and a 2024 3rd.

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Because Tippett isn't that special either. We also have a hilariously underachieving RW top 10 pick from 4 drafts ago that isn't on the list - not to mention that Philly sent an underachieving former 1st to Florida in that deal too (German Rubtsov). 

 

We should learn from situations like MSL or Giroux to not overpay GMs to move players - even very good ones - when the destinations are severely limited. This is one of those cases, and we should hold firm on Kravtsov and a 1st as the core of an offer. 

Kane is a better player than Giroux, and more likely to try and stay in NY because of Panarin. Thinking you're getting Kane for Krav is kray.

[LindG1000]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Kane is a better player than Giroux, and more likely to try and stay in NY because of Panarin. Thinking you're getting Kane for Krav is kray.

 

Kane is better than Giroux. No disagreement. 

 

There's little to no math that makes sense for Kane to stay in NY unless he wants to take league min, or unless we off one of Lafreniere, Miller, or Chytil in the deal. That's a lot of risk to put on this trade having anything more than immediate benefit, and I still see absolutely no reason for us to do that given that Kane controls his destiny and that most teams can't afford him anyway. 

 

Chicago doesn't need to be blown away here. We simply need a better offer than the Islanders or Wild, really.

[Tonybologna]

What about Blais? He's got some pretty high trade value if I recall .

Kinda kidding but also think Blais would be a good piece to move in this. Blais, Krav, 2024 1st, 3rd? If they want a 2023 1st then give them a prospect (not Othmann) instead of Krav. It shouldn't cost anyone from the current top 9 or Othmann and if it does, I don't make the trade and we get Kane for free this offseason if it can work capwise.

[Long live the King]

Just now, Pete said:

Kane is a better player than Giroux, and more likely to try and stay in NY because of Panarin. Thinking you're getting Kane for Krav is kray.

 

Giroux can play center, very good from the dot, and puts up plenty of points, although Kane can be more dynamic. Where Kane signs as a UFA has no impact to the pieces in the trade.  You also have to factor in the Giroux supposedly took Boston and the Rangers out of the running with his NMC.  Kane can force his way here if he wants to play with Panarin again that bad.