Brooks Rangers Will be in on Patrick Kane

[BrooksBurner]

Just now, Ozzy said:

I really would like Drury to call Craig MacTavish and see if he wants to come out of retirement!!!  LOL

 

Seriously, I want a shut down 4th line center...I mean "SHUT DOWN"...like air tight.  We do that and we're gonna see some sparks!!

Goodrow ! Meathead behind the bench just needs to play him there already

[Ozzy]

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Goodrow ! Meathead behind the bench just needs to play him there already

 

I hear ya, RMC....He just won't do it!  So I'll call MacTavish!  He's at the bar, a few stools down from me!!  LOL

[jsm7302]

34 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Here’s where I’m at. I like Vesey. He’s truly been a great surprise. I also don’t trust him as a staple in the top 9 in the playoffs. He’s a terrific option to have on the 4th line who you can slide up in the event of injury, or if someone isn’t playing so well he can slide up and we can have some confidence it’ll work out. What I don’t want to see is a Kreider or Kakko or Panarin get hurt, and if we only trade for a 4th line player then Vesey is in the top 9 already. That means someone else has to move up…Goodrow probably. Now the top 9 looks not so good, the 4th line turns to junk, etc.

 

The team needs another top 9 to help offset any of our talent getting banged up. The playoffs are a grind. Kane is a perfect fit.

I totally understand that concern but we have Goodrow and Vesey to slot up. They are capable of providing support on a shot term basis. Maybe another Vatrano at the deadline would be a good option but bringing in another captain esque type in an established locker room isn't the answer imo. I've flip flopped on this a few times through out the year.

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Goodrow ! Meathead behind the bench just needs to play him there already

Except if you look at the numbers you'd see that he actually stinks. His value is way more in the locker room and on the bench than it is on the ice. 

[RichieNextel305]

That’s where I stand with Vesey too, hence my resistance to give up on Kane just yet.

 

Its nice to look at now and say it’s not an issue. But again, I think come playoff time, we’d look a lot more formidable if Vesey was skating on our 4th line.

[BrooksBurner]

7 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I totally understand that concern but we have Goodrow and Vesey to slot up. They are capable of providing support on a shot term basis. Maybe another Vatrano at the deadline would be a good option but bringing in another captain esque type in an established locker room isn't the answer imo. I've flip flopped on this a few times through out the year.

I think we’re talking the same language even if you don’t want Kane. I would want Kane, but I’ll be very satisfied with a different top 9 player too. Maybe even a C/W flex type player. An Andrew Copp - lite.

 

Tell ya what… @The Dude’s Domi suggestion growing on me. He can flex both spots and play all over the lineup.

Edited February 18, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

That’s where I stand with Vesey too, hence my resistance to give up on Kane just yet.

 

Its nice to look at now and say it’s not an issue. But again, I think come playoff time, we’d look a lot more formidable if Vesey was skating on our 4th line.

No we wouldn't. Because of deployment. The lineup needs more of Vesey on the ice, not less. If he's playing on the 4th line he'll wind up with 8 mins against the other team's 4th line.

 

That doesn't keep pucks out of our net. 

[Pete]

 

[RichieNextel305]

29 minutes ago, Pete said:

No we wouldn't. Because of deployment. The lineup needs more of Vesey on the ice, not less. If he's playing on the 4th line he'll wind up with 8 mins against the other team's 4th line.

 

That doesn't keep pucks out of our net. 

Late in games, that’s a very easy switch to make if we’re up a goal or 2 trying to defend.

 

From the drop of the puck, I would much prefer Kane there.

 

And again, I’m not talking moving major pieces. I’m talking forcing Chicago and Kane to make a call here. Hey, this is where you want to play. This is what we have to offer. Are you in or out? Let them decide from there.

 

I would rather dangle Kravtsov like this then for a 2nd or 3rd Round Pick.

[Pete]

26 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

Late in games, that’s a very easy switch to make if we’re up a goal or 2 trying to defend.

 

From the drop of the puck, I would much prefer Kane there.

 

And again, I’m not talking moving major pieces. I’m talking forcing Chicago and Kane to make a call here. Hey, this is where you want to play. This is what we have to offer. Are you in or out? Let them decide from there.

 

I would rather dangle Kravtsov like this then for a 2nd or 3rd Round Pick.

That's great that you feel that way but GG won't. He's not sitting Kane or Tarasenko late in games. 

 

This is really simple decision, scoring is not the problem so there is no point in trading for the winger to help the offense. 

 

Especially if he's not playing on the PP.

 

Tarasenko was the move. That piece of business is done. Add depth. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's great that you feel that way but GG won't. He's not sitting Kane or Tarasenko late in games. 

 

This is really simple decision I am out, scoring is not the problem so there is no point in trading for the winger to help the offense. 

 

Especially if he's not playing on the PP.

 

Tarasenko was the move. That piece of business is done. Add depth. 

You’ve already recognized the team isn’t playing structured hockey without changing coaches. So what is getting non-scoring depth accomplishing? Just hoping they provide coach-less structure? Not happening.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

You’ve already recognized the team isn’t playing structured hockey without changing coaches. So what is getting non-scoring depth accomplishing? Just hoping they provide coach-less structure? Not happening.

Offense isn't the problem, so what is adding scoring depth accomplishing? Removing Vesey and adding Kane actually makes the problem worse in 2 ways. You're removing their best defensive forward from the top nine and adding who would arguably be the worst defensive forward in order to address a "problem"  that doesn't exist.

 

This is nothing more than fan addiction to sexy names. It's typical Rangers moves that make no sense. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Pete

[The Dude]

56 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

That’s where I stand with Vesey too, hence my resistance to give up on Kane just yet.

 

Its nice to look at now and say it’s not an issue. But again, I think come playoff time, we’d look a lot more formidable if Vesey was skating on our 4th line.

I want the players to play in roles they are suited for.  Vesey at this point isn't an everyday top 6 player. Top 9 is doable, but I'd rather add depth that covers this. Vesey (as valiant as his story has been) should not be playing in this current top 9. He has no business playing with Trocheck or Zibanejad. 

 

Get a guy that is seen as a legit option to play in this rotation of 4- now 5 players. Trocheck and Panarin are back to looking like they've never played together. So, I'm anticipating another juggle of 10, 93, 20, 16, 91 in some form. Vesey doesn't belong in that group of forwards.  Just doesn't. 

 

Kane would be nice, but the price tag may be too much. I've been thinking a step down. Getting any RW worth a damn, certainly helps push players like Vesey and Goodrow back to where they really belong and creates depth to a degree we should all want to have.  One more "just in case" forward that has been in a top 6 role, puts me there. 

 

I think 26-21-12 is a really good 4th line.  Maybe Motte to improve on Gauthier...  

 

My Domi and Blackwell suggestion the other day, is more what I think is cost effective and makes a good fit.  2 guys that can play RW and C in a pinch, up and down a lineup.

 

I'd be fine with Kane.  It's a bit much, but why not? As long as the cost isn't insane. I think there's better fits though. 

 

 

 

 

[RichieNextel305]

18 minutes ago, Pete said:

Offense isn't the problem, so what is adding scoring depth accomplishing? Removing Vesey and adding Kane actually makes the problem worse in 2 ways. You're removing their best defensive forward from the top nine and adding who would arguably be the worst defensive forward in order to address a "problem"  that doesn't exist.

 

This is nothing more than fan addiction to sexy names. It's typical Rangers moves that make no sense. 

It’s about wanting to go into what will

be a battle (multiple) in the playoffs against other elite teams that could score with as much firepower as possible.

[BrooksBurner]

13 minutes ago, Pete said:

Offense isn't the problem, so what is adding scoring depth accomplishing? Removing Vesey and adding Kane actually makes the problem worse in 2 ways. You're removing their best defensive forward from the top nine and adding who would arguably be the worst defensive forward in order to address a "problem"  that doesn't exist.

 

This is nothing more than fan addiction to sexy names. It's typical Rangers moves that make no sense. 

You’re not answering the question though. In an ideal world, yes, there’s a defensive structure and we get guys to contribute to it. But there is no defensive structure, and Vesey certainly isn’t going to be the glue for something that doesn’t exist. I accept the Rangers for what they are, and I’m willing to double down and make their strengths and who they are even stronger.

 

A 4C isn’t saving this team defensively.

[BrooksBurner]

Kreider - Zib - Tarasenko

Panarin - Tro - Kane

Kids

Vesey - Goodrow - Gauthier

 

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

No we wouldn't. Because of deployment. The lineup needs more of Vesey on the ice, not less. If he's playing on the 4th line he'll wind up with 8 mins against the other team's 4th line.

 

That doesn't keep pucks out of our net. 

This is true. But having him getting 17 minutes a night has us where we are now.

 

So, mayyybee, Vesey isn't what we want on the ice more than 8-12 minutes? 

 

His +/- says otherwise,  but the team has been bleeding chances while he's been getting the increased icetime.  No, I'm not singling him out. I'm not saying it's all on him. But he is one of the guys getting some prime minutes lately.

 

I don't think moving him to the 4th line changes much of anything defensively, besides the possibility of forcing Gallant to use his favorite toys on a 4th line and figuring out what that line can actuallycontribute and implementing that into his line rotation. 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Dude]

38 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

You’re not answering the question though. In an ideal world, yes, there’s a defensive structure and we get guys to contribute to it. But there is no defensive structure, and Vesey certainly isn’t going to be the glue for something that doesn’t exist. I accept the Rangers for what they are, and I’m willing to double down and make their strengths and who they are even stronger.

 

A 4C isn’t saving this team defensively.

Pretty much what I was going to add.

 

If there's no defensive structure,  why add a piece that isn't going to contribute. Vesey isn't some kind of defensive wiz that is keeping the floodgates from opening for the top 9. 

 

The team has guys that can form a checking 4th line right now. But it doesn't interest Gallant to do that, or maybe he does, but he doesn't do it properly.  He'll say Leschyshyn is good at playing defensive minded hockey,  but what the fuck does he know about that? Obviously nothing as Leschyshyn is dressed to play daily and is dogshit out there..  So, why add anything like that, if it's just something that won't be used? 

 

I'd rather upgrade Vesey and have him be the depth, rather than count on him for production. He's been good. But 9 goals and 12 assists while playing very often with the top 6 isn’t really anything special.  It can definitely be improved upon. 

 

This isn’t some kind of complaint against Vesey. He's done more than I expected and hasn't been a problem. He's filled a void and resurrected his career (kinda). But his spot certainly can and should be upgraded.

 

I guess the dispute is, with what kind of player. With Gallant here. It should be a player that can score and or have a slight edge. 

 

 

[Pete]

54 minutes ago, The Dude said:

This is true. But having him getting 17 minutes a night has us where we are now.

 

So, mayyybee, Vesey isn't what we want on the ice more than 8-12 minutes? 

 

Didn't we just win something like 24 of the last 30 games? 

 

Quote

His +/- says otherwise,  but the team has been bleeding chances while he's been getting the increased icetime.  No, I'm not singling him out. I'm not saying it's all on him. But he is one of the guys getting some prime minutes lately.

 

 

 

I don't think moving him to the 4th line changes much of anything defensively, besides the possibility of forcing Gallant to use his favorite toys on a 4th line and figuring out what that line can actuallycontribute and implementing that into his line rotation. 

You're going to have to prove that claim. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

You’re not answering the question though. In an ideal world, yes, there’s a defensive structure and we get guys to contribute to it. But there is no defensive structure, and Vesey certainly isn’t going to be the glue for something that doesn’t exist. I accept the Rangers for what they are, and I’m willing to double down and make their strengths and who they are even stronger.

 

A 4C isn’t saving this team defensively.

Sending assets away to not solve a not problem makes no sense. Plain and simple. 

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Vesey isn't some kind of defensive wiz that is keeping the floodgates from opening for the top 9. 

I remember people saying that about fast, they were wrong too. 

[The Dude]

Just now, Pete said:

Didn't we just win something like 24 of the last 30 games? 

 

You're going to have to prove that claim. 

Aren't we talking about a team that is bleeding chances and fails to play any defense? 

 

Are we not to improve? Are you saying this team has no issues? Much like last year this team isn't perfect. 

 

Go back and read. I said it wasn't all on him. But the team has been looking pretty shitty defensively for about 2 weeks now. Which coincides with Veseys jump in icetime. Maybe it's the D. It's certainly Shestyorkin not being on his A game. Maybe it's everyone. Vesey is part of that everyone. He's getting 17 minutes a night lately. He's part of it. 

 

So, does this team stand pat? I mean 24 of 30. Why'd they even get Tarasenko with such a dominant run? 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, RichieNextel305 said:

It’s about wanting to go into what will

be a battle (multiple) in the playoffs against other elite teams that could score with as much firepower as possible.

They have all the firepower they need.

 

It's like buying a Yukon Denali with one kid because you need all the space you can get... Put your in money into something that makes more sense. 

[The Dude]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

I remember people saying that about fast, they were wrong too. 

But not really. 

 

Did they make it to the ECF with or without Fast?  Did they need Fast? Obviously not, so....

[Pete]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Aren't we talking about a team that is bleeding chances and fails to play any defense? 

 

Are we not to improve? Are you saying this team has no issues? Much like last year this team isn't perfect. 

 

Go back and read. I said it wasn't all on him. But the team has been looking pretty shitty defensively for about 2 weeks now. Which coincides with Veseys jump in icetime. Maybe it's the D. It's certainly Shestyorkin not being on his A game. Maybe it's everyone. Vesey is part of that everyone. He's getting 17 minutes a night lately. He's part of it. 

 

So, does this team stand pat? I mean 24 of 30. Why'd they even get Tarasenko with such a dominant run? 

Bro the team has been defensively terrible for years, what are you talking about two weeks LOL.

 

I don't know why we're trying to Galaxy brain this, the team does not need to put more goals in the net, they need to keep more pucks out of it. You do that with defensively sound players.

 

This is not hard.