Brooks Rangers Will be in on Patrick Kane

[jsm7302]

We have no right wing depth but have 2 LWs behind our current 3 (top 6 projected) who are expected to break into the lineup as soon as next year. A LW trade is so much more appealing as an organization than a RW trade. If it isn't Laf then it has to be Othmann or Cuylle. Blocking development due to ill timed NMC's is our current scenario. Give them somewhere else to grow because the next 4 seasons are pretty jam packed at LW.

 

Othmann and Laf are going to be in an odd man out situation. Do you pull the trigger for Kane or try for another. Regardless our pieces to trade are LWers.

[RJWantsTheCup]

Blais, Kravtsov, Jones and #1 for Kane 

[LindG1000]

1 minute ago, jsm7302 said:

We have no right wing depth but have 2 LWs behind our current 3 (top 6 projected) who are expected to break into the lineup as soon as next year. A LW trade is so much more appealing as an organization than a RW trade. If it isn't Laf then it has to be Othmann or Cuylle. Blocking development due to ill timed NMC's is our current scenario. Give them somewhere else to grow because the next 4 seasons are pretty jam packed at LW.

 

Othmann and Laf are going to be in an odd man out situation. Do you pull the trigger for Kane or try for another. Regardless our pieces to trade are LWers.

That's a problem for postseason Chris Drury, imo. Organizational depth can fuck off if we're going for a cup. 

[Ozzy]

We best include a 6th defenseman in a TDL deal, or the only cup were gonna win, is one to take a piss test!!  LOL

[jsm7302]

Goodrow at 3rd line LW is as good as Laf and in fact shows much of the same qualities.

 

Removing Blais, Kravtsov and Gauthier are acceptable but I'm thinking Chicago is going to want more than spare parts. None of those three should be exciting for a rebuilding franchise. Talking realtime, I'd send Laf for Kane and slot up Goodrow.

 

Does it come down to watching Laf be stifled for the next four years and waiting on the return or making a play for Kane with house money. Maybe Laf becomes a 50 point guy but regardless he isn't displacing anyone on the roster above him on the depth chart. Go for a cup, trade from a position of strength. All capable to be done.

 

 

[LindG1000]

I think the biggest point to make here is that it's literally never the blue chip or well-pedigreed prospects that go.

 

Giroux didn't cost Florida Lundell or Samoskevich, Nash didn't cost Boston Trent Frederic or Charlie McAvoy or Urho Vaakaninen. Taylor Hall didn't cost them John Beecher. 

 

The deadline deals never include the top prospects or youth, even for great players. The types of top prospect-ish players included are folks who are fringe NHLers four years post-draft or longer - which fits Kravtsov, Pajuniemi, Robertson, or Jones. That's the tier I'd be looking at.

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

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.

No one can say for sure what Kane wants. He hasn't even said he wants to be traded at the deadline, yet. So for anyone to try and speculate what he wants in his next contract, there's just not enough information. And if we had information, it would change based on if he wins a Cup in NY and thinks he can win another one here.

 

What we do know is that he's not happy losing, and precious few contending teams can afford him next year with the cap not going up very much. Maybe he does Taylor Hall-it and take a small 1 year deal with a team that's on the cusp.

 

He's coming off a contract that just paid him $84M, after one that paid him $31M.

 

This is still a case of NYR fans overvaluing their picks based on draft position. Look, I'm a big Kakko fan, and he controls his own destiny. Play well enough that we don't need Kane, would be the ideal scenario.

[Pete]

28 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

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.

No disagreement, except for the bolded. That's just not accurate.

[Pete]

20 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

I think the biggest point to make here is that it's literally never the blue chip or well-pedigreed prospects that go.

 

Giroux didn't cost Florida Lundell or Samoskevich, Nash didn't cost Boston Trent Frederic or Charlie McAvoy or Urho Vaakaninen. Taylor Hall didn't cost them John Beecher. 

 

The deadline deals never include the top prospects or youth, even for great players. The types of top prospect-ish players included are folks who are fringe NHLers four years post-draft or longer - which fits Kravtsov, Pajuniemi, Robertson, or Jones. That's the tier I'd be looking at.

Agreed. The issue is that you think Laf and Kakko are blue chippers and the rest of the NHL probably doesn't.

[LindG1000]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

No one can say for sure what Kane wants. He hasn't even said he wants to be traded at the deadline, yet. So for anyone to try and speculate what he wants in his next contract, there's just not enough information. And if we had information, it would change based on if he wins a Cup in NY and thinks he can win another one here.

 

What we do know is that he's not happy losing, and precious few contending teams can afford him next year with the cap not going up very much. Maybe he does Taylor Hall-it and take a small 1 year deal with a team that's on the cusp.

 

He's coming off a contract that just paid him $84M, after one that paid him $31M.

 

This is still a case of NYR fans overvaluing their picks based on draft position. Look, I'm a big Kakko fan, and he controls his own destiny. Play well enough that we don't need Kane, would be the ideal scenario.

 

I mean, sure, but Taylor Hall took a "small" deal in the sense that it was just one year. It was still $8m - and that's still untenable for...pretty much everyone. If it makes you happy - he'd have to take a sweetheart deal to stay here. He'd have to take a sweetheart deal to go to pretty much any contender.

 

As for Laf and Kakko being blue chippers, whatever. I'm not getting into the semantics or the perceptions here; the most recent top picks literally never get dealt in years 2 or 3. It's happened twice in three decades, and never since Wade Redden (who was traded for Bryan Berard, the #1 pick in the exact same draft  because of a holdout situation). Suffice it to say that almost every NHL team would view both of them as premium assets, regardless of on-ice performance. Even suggesting they're on the table is pushing the value far beyond where we need to be to acquire Kane given deadline deal history.

 

 

[Ozzy]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

No one can say for sure what Kane wants. He hasn't even said he wants to be traded at the deadline, yet. So for anyone to try and speculate what he wants in his next contract, there's just not enough information. And if we had information, it would change based on if he wins a Cup in NY and thinks he can win another one here.

 

What we do know is that he's not happy losing, and precious few contending teams can afford him next year with the cap not going up very much. Maybe he does Taylor Hall-it and take a small 1 year deal with a team that's on the cusp.

 

He's coming off a contract that just paid him $84M, after one that paid him $31M.

 

This is still a case of NYR fans overvaluing their picks based on draft position. Look, I'm a big Kakko fan, and he controls his own destiny. Play well enough that we don't need Kane, would be the ideal scenario.

 

I'm hoping we don't need Kane.  I'm a huge Kakko supporter and I really like Yukon Cornelius.  Absolutely @Pete.  Give us a reason to pass on Kane...

IDEAL!

 

Then we can focus on that defenseman spot, and bring in a killer 6th D man!

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I mean, sure, but Taylor Hall took a "small" deal in the sense that it was just one year. It was still $8m - and that's still untenable for...pretty much everyone. If it makes you happy - he'd have to take a sweetheart deal to stay here. He'd have to take a sweetheart deal to go to pretty much any contender.

 

As for Laf and Kakko being blue chippers, whatever. I'm not getting into the semantics or the perceptions here; the most recent top picks literally never get dealt in years 2 or 3. It's happened twice in three decades, and never since Wade Redden (who was traded for Bryan Berard, the #1 pick in the exact same draft  because of a holdout situation). Suffice it to say that almost every NHL team would view both of them as premium assets, regardless of on-ice performance. Even suggesting they're on the table is pushing the value far beyond where we need to be to acquire Kane given deadline deal history.

 

 

The most recent picks don't get traded because they performed. You'd have to go back as far as Nial Yakupov to see such futility, and Edmonton moved on after year 4. Kakko is in year 4, Laf is in year 3. Tippet was moved after 2 seasons, for a rental. Nolan Patrick was moved after 3 seasons. The cap says you can't be as patient with players as you used to be.

 

Lafreniere, I don't care about. Kakko, I don't want to trade. I just don't see him as stopper on getting Kane. I wouldn't trade him in a deal for Andrew Copp.

[LindG1000]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

The most recent picks don't get traded because they performed. You'd have to go back as far as Nial Yakupov to see such futility, and Edmonton moved on after year 4. Kakko is in year 4, Laf is in year 3. Tippet was moved after 2 seasons, for a rental. Nolan Patrick was moved after 3 seasons. The cap says you can't be as patient with players as you used to be.

 

Lafreniere, I don't care about. Kakko, I don't want to trade. I just don't see him as stopper on getting Kane. I wouldn't trade him in a deal for Andrew Copp.

 

Fine, but again - based on past precedent, neither of them is necessary for this deal. So I'm not really sure why it's become a topic of discussion.

 

It's just not how the NHL operates, it doesn't happen, and it shouldn't be on the table no matter how much any of us love Kane or how middling their performance as 19-year-olds has been. 

[jsm7302]

44 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Fine, but again - based on past precedent, neither of them is necessary for this deal. So I'm not really sure why it's become a topic of discussion.

 

It's just not how the NHL operates, it doesn't happen, and it shouldn't be on the table no matter how much any of us love Kane or how middling their performance as 19-year-olds has been. 

I think @Pete nailed it when he said we overvalue Laf and Kakko comparatively to how the league sees these guys. Outside of their draft position, they are not showstopping prospects which is how we got to this discussion.

 

We traded Callahan for St. Louis. Is the thought that Callahan was less valuable than Kakko or Laf?

 

I'm not sure why those two cannot be discussed as possible wants from Chicago?

[Long live the King]

6 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I think @Pete nailed it when he said we overvalue Laf and Kakko comparatively to how the league sees these guys. Outside of their draft position, they are not showstopping prospects which is how we got to this discussion.

 

We traded Callahan for St. Louis. Is the thought that Callahan was less valuable than Kakko or Laf?

 

I'm not sure why those two cannot be discussed as possible wants from Chicago?

 

Cally was a pending free agent that failed to agree to an extension.  What's that have to do with this? 

[LindG1000]

2 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I think @Pete nailed it when he said we overvalue Laf and Kakko comparatively to how the league sees these guys. Outside of their draft position, they are not showstopping prospects which is how we got to this discussion.

 

We traded Callahan for St. Louis. Is the thought that Callahan was less valuable than Kakko or Laf?

 

I'm not sure why those two cannot be discussed as possible wants from Chicago?

 

It has nothing to do with whether or not we overvalue or undervalue them. It has everything to do with how the league does business at the deadline and how the league perceives top 5 picks. 

 

Whether we as a fanbase overvalue them or not, history says they're simply not necessary to make this kind of a deal. So why are we clamoring to voluntarily offer them if the most comparable trades made at deadlines past come nowhere close to requiring a recent top 10 pick? 

 

Based on past deals, you can and should get Kane for Kravtsov, one of Robertson/Jones, and some assortment of picks. Why is adding Kakko or Laf instead of Kravtsov somehow better asset management here?

 

 

[RangersIn7]

6 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

Cally was a pending free agent that failed to agree to an extension.  What's that have to do with this? 

I think they saw the handwriting on the wall with Cally, TBH.

They knew he would not age well given his size, style of play, and skill set, and I think they made him an offer that was fair market, but below what he wanted and knew what he could get elsewhere, pretty much knowing he’d turn it down. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Fine, but again - based on past precedent, neither of them is necessary for this deal. So I'm not really sure why it's become a topic of discussion.

It's a topic of discussion because first and foremost, you're not right (but instead of that... let's just say I disagree), and second people are allowed to discuss things you don't agree with and guess what? You don't have to participate!

Quote

It's just not how the NHL operates, it doesn't happen, and it shouldn't be on the table no matter how much any of us love Kane or how middling their performance as 19-year-olds has been. 

But I just showed that it did, so your hardheadedness doesn't equate to "It doesn't happen because the NHL doesn't operate this way.

 

There could be a mega deal where we get Kane+ for Kakko+. Who the fuck knows.

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Pete

[Pete]

33 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

So why are we clamoring to voluntarily offer them

That's not what's happening, and an flat out false misinterpretation of my stance.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Kakko, I don't want to trade. I just don't see him as stopper on getting Kane.

 

[josh]

3 hours 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.

Thinking you are getting anything but an old Kane is kray 

 

They’re trading for 2023 Kane. Not 2017 Kane, or even 2021 Kane.

 

 

 

someone posted about this big drop off very recently in these undersized guys and why we should avoid them as much as possible 

[BrooksBurner]

39 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's not what's happening, and an flat out false misinterpretation of my stance.

 

I guess it comes down to when do you blink on that during negotiations? Maybe it’s not a blocker for you, and of course they’ll ask for it, but at what stage do you cave to the request? 2:59 deadline day?
 

They’ll cave first IMO and take what they can get from wherever Kane wants to go.

Edited December 20, 2022 by rmc51

[Pete]

1 minute ago, rmc51 said:

I guess it comes down to when do you blink on that during negotiations? Maybe it’s not a blocker for you, and of course they’ll ask for it, but at what stage do you cave to the request? 2:59 deadline day?

I think we'll know a lot more by deadline day, so hard to say right now. How good, or bad, or hurt is Kakko?
 

I can't tell you that right now.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, josh said:

Thinking you are getting anything but an old Kane is kray 

 

They’re trading for 2023 Kane. Not 2017 Kane, or even 2021 Kane.

 

 

 

someone posted about this big drop off very recently in these undersized guys and why we should avoid them as much as possible 

2023 Kane is still better than 2023 Kakko despite what the stat sheet says. Kane + Panarin is better than Kakko + anyone on the roster, today.

 

That said, if the Rangers are not in the playoffs at the deadline, maybe I don't really feel this way annymore, either. I'm not making a deal in an effort to just sneak into the playoffs.

[RichieNextel305]

I just don’t see the Rangers being willing to deal Kakko or Lafreniere for any type of rental property. And I honestly don’t believe it will come to that.

 

What the price is, is anyone’s guess. But my $.02 is that it won’t feature Kakko or Lafreniere. 
 

I still think that this is a near certainty to happen. Only way it doesn’t is if he wants to stay and break records for the Blackhawk organization, which is a right he’s earned. But he doesn’t strike me as the type that’s going to be okay with losing like this for awhile.

[The Dude]

20 hours ago, rmc51 said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/blackhawks/what-would-blackhawks-rangers-trade-involving-patrick-kane-look

 

 

Kind of a bad article. How do you go from using the Giroux deal as a template, that got back a fairly busted '17 #10OA, a top 10 protected 1st, and a 3rd, to Chytil/Kakko/Lafreniere should be involved? Drury would be a complete asshole to trade any of these guys for Kane.

 

 

Yes, but what else do the Rangers have to offer that adds up to that package? If they can offer up Lafrenière, get retention AND prospects back, it kinda makes sense.

 

The closest thing they have to Tippet is Kravtsov. He's done virtually nothing so far (I think he's going to start lighting it up) and the article states, league interest in him is low. Gotta give to get. You give Lafrenière and you're getting a bit more back.  Not just a Kane rental. 

 

Don't forget Kane wouldn't be the only move needed at the deadline and the wanted salary retention is more or less helpful for adding more pieces, than it is -' just to get Kane here under the cap. They are going to have to spend on a vet D man that can be trusted to take a shift late in the 3rd and possibly slot up incase of an injury.