Rangers Acquire Patrick Kane From Blackhawks for 2023 Conditional 2nd Round Pick and a 4th Round Pick

[BrooksBurner]

The Rangers held up fine physically yesterday against the Bruins.

[The Dude]

23 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yup, and that's my worry still, especially when you look at the teams they're likely to have to get through to get there, which is likely some combination of NJD, CAR, and BOS. The Devil's don't scare me, physically, but the Canes and Bruins are likely to dominate them, physically.

This. Even Toronto can physically take it to this team. They've assembled one of those rosters that look incredible (on paper) for a playoff run. 

 

Tampa kinda has the Rangers number too. 

 

Nevermind the wildcard teams that could creep up. Washington,  Florida or Buffalo would be trouble for the Rangers. 

 

I can't complain about the Kane trade. The value is there. But. I'd rather have gone with the direction I was leaning. A tier or 2 lower RW than Kane,  and another 4th liner plus a D man. All of which whom should have a bit of dirt in their game. Depth. Tons of depth.

 

We knew Lindgren would eventually break down. We should be ready for another injury to a forward or 2 as well. This was the issue that pushed this team last year in the playoffs. Not enough depth.  Next man up, didn't really work. It became shorten the bench and pray. This was with elite level goaltending.  

 

I dunno guys. It's an Allstar roster...... For an Allstar game..

 

I'm extremely nervous about the make up and depth of the team.  I saw a lot of players moved around the league,  that would have been really good fits for the Rangers. 

 

But, this is it. Can't complain. They have a lot of talent. They have acquired some serious gamers that have traditionally done big things when it matters most.

 

Right now I'm liking Tarasenko a hell of a lot more than Kane. But it's only been 2 games for Kane. 2 really ugly and uninspiring games. That one lazy giveaway yesterday in the 3rd realllly turned me off. 

 

I guess the only thing to do is hope these days off calm everyone down and players heal. A small reset. Maybe even some kind of bonding. 

This isn't going to be a walk in the park. There's lots of work to do. 

[RodrigueGabriel]

Yeah. When Jimmy Vesey is your go-to tough guy, you're in very serious trouble. During the Kane run-up, I heard the same old refrain - "grit doesn't win hockey games, talent does" - and started banging my head on the table.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

The Rangers held up fine physically yesterday against the Bruins.

Yesterday wasn't a 7 game playoff series.

 

Just pointing that out, even though I disagree with the entire premise based on how the Avs won last season. 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Pete

[RichieNextel305]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Yup, and that's my worry still, especially when you look at the teams they're likely to have to get through to get there, which is likely some combination of NJD, CAR, and BOS. The Devil's don't scare me, physically, but the Canes and Bruins are likely to dominate them, physically.

But what was the difference between last year and this year? All I heard last year was how having Reaves did little to deter teams from playing physical against us. Other than that, Vatrano to Tarasenko? Copp to Kane? All 4 of those guys aren’t necessarily big physical guys; maybe Copp plays the hardest game.

 

I just don’t see much of the difference from last year to this year in terms of physicality if you remove Reaves.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Yesterday wasn't a 7 game playoff series.

 

Just pointing that out, even though I disagree with the entire premise based on how the Avs won last season. 

 

 

There was nothing that occurred yesterday that indicated the Rangers would be a pushover physically in a 7 game series.

 

Agree, mostly. It still plays a role, but it is a premise that has less importance as the sport has evolved. Even if it were as important as it used to be, I was just saying I don’t even see the Rangers being pushovers. The only reason we still hear about it is because three seasons ago they actually were pushovers and Tom Wilson exposed it to the nth degree.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

There was nothing that occurred yesterday that indicated the Rangers would be a pushover physically in a 7 game series.

Well yes, because it was one game and not seven.

 

Across 7 games the D will just get worn down, make mistakes, etc. Something happens when you receive your 30th bodycheck that doesn't happen when you receive your 3rd. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Well yes, because it was one game and not seven.

 

Across 7 games the D will just get worn down, make mistakes, etc. Something happens when you receive your 30th bodycheck that doesn't happen when you receive your 3rd. 

I’m confused by your stance. You say you disagree with the premise, but then say physicality means something as a series goes  on and causes mistakes.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

I’m confused by your stance. You say you disagree with the premise, but then say physicality means something as a series goes  on and causes mistakes.

Why can't both be true?

 

My stance is that 1 game isn't indicative of what happens over 7.

 

It's also my stance that you don't need to play that heavy physical style to win. 

[Valriera]

There’s no reason we can’t dominate the playoffs like Colorado did last year we have all the personnel needed just need to execute 

[BrooksBurner]

7 hours ago, Pete said:

Why can't both be true?

 

My stance is that 1 game isn't indicative of what happens over 7.

 

It's also my stance that you don't need to play that heavy physical style to win. 

 

Of course they can. The Rangers could win while being the softest team alive (they aren't), but it's a harder to do so. It's all about percentages. As we talked about a week or two ago when talking about having a $9M goalie, the percentages of winning are lower compared to a team built with an elite forward core, but it's not impossible to do it. I'm not sure if the Avs run last year, as a relatively non-physical team, means that approach correlates with a higher percentage chance of winning now, or if it was an exception to the rule. I mentioned the other day that Tampa's top 9 wasn't all that "gritty" either, so maybe a trend has started.

 

Anyway, you initially said you disagreed with the entire premise, and re-reading through, I'm not sure what the premise actually was anymore.

[Scott]

When it comes to the Bruins they're also getting the world class goaltending (goals against and save %) and have all season. I would credit that to both the goalies and the structure of the team along with the quality of the D. I wouldn't expect that to suddenly fade away.  I would be surprised to see them knocked out, is it possible sure. God bless anybody being confident about our chances against them.  They're way past the let's hope these guys mesh together phase with their core and I think that makes a big difference.   Time will tell.

[Pete]

35 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Of course they can. The Rangers could win while being the softest team alive (they aren't), but it's a harder to do so. It's all about percentages. As we talked about a week or two ago when talking about having a $9M goalie, the percentages of winning are lower compared to a team built with an elite forward core, but it's not impossible to do it. I'm not sure if the Avs run last year, as a relatively non-physical team, means that approach correlates with a higher percentage chance of winning now, or if it was an exception to the rule. I mentioned the other day that Tampa's top 9 wasn't all that "gritty" either, so maybe a trend has started.

 

Anyway, you initially said you disagreed with the entire premise, and re-reading through, I'm not sure what the premise actually was anymore.

The premise I disagreed with was that you need to be a heavy team to win.

 

The point you were making was that the Rangers hung with the Bruins for 1 game therefore they could for a series. I don't agree that 1 game is ever indicative of a playoff series. 

[trooooooobs]

Don't need another undersized "superstar".  Needed a lunch pail toting,  gritty guy with some size and experience.   Burtuzzi would have been nice.  Don't get me wrong, Kane is great but just not what was needed for playoff run

[Phil]

On 3/5/2023 at 8:55 AM, BrooksBurner said:

The Rangers held up fine physically yesterday against the Bruins.

 

One game ≠ seven games ≠ multiple grinding, physical series.

 

I like how deep their offense is. I just have some concerns over their lack of muscle outside of Goodrow and Trouba.

[Phil]

21 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

But what was the difference between last year and this year? All I heard last year was how having Reaves did little to deter teams from playing physical against us. Other than that, Vatrano to Tarasenko? Copp to Kane? All 4 of those guys aren’t necessarily big physical guys; maybe Copp plays the hardest game.

 

I just don’t see much of the difference from last year to this year in terms of physicality if you remove Reaves.

 

When I talk about muscle, I talk about it from the perspective of it being throughout the lineup, either to create a unique line, or create unique elements on multiple lines. It's why I liked the idea of Jeannot so much. He can play anywhere in your lineup, similar to Vesey or Goodrow, but with probably better offense.

[BrooksBurner]

10 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

One game ≠ seven games ≠ multiple grinding, physical series.

 

I like how deep their offense is. I just have some concerns over their lack of muscle outside of Goodrow and Trouba.

While this is true, I still saw nothing in the one game that indicated a large gap in physicality that could be expected to manifest itself over a long series. Not like Caps against Rangers 3 seasons ago with Tom Wilson running around unanswerable, where it was clear even in one game that there was a problem. Nobody can prove, for example, that 29 year old Trocheck’s body will breakdown any worse than 37 year old David Krejci’s body over a 7 game series, or multiple series.

[Pete]

43 minutes ago, vanman said:

Don't need another undersized "superstar".  Needed a lunch pail toting,  gritty guy with some size and experience.   Burtuzzi would have been nice.  Don't get me wrong, Kane is great but just not what was needed for playoff run

You realize that Tarasenko is 6-2, 230, right? 

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Nobody can prove, for example, that 29 year old Trocheck’s body will breakdown any worse than 37 year old David Krejci’s body over a 7 game series, or multiple series.

Prove? No that's silly.

 

But logic will tell me that 29-year-old 5-10, 180 Tro going up against 6-1, 210 Charlie McAvoy will likely sustain more wear and tear than 37-year-old Krejci going up against... Well, nobody who's likely to lay a body on him.

 

But that's not the game the Rangers should be trying to play anyway. 

[Ozzy]

Just now, Pete said:

You realize that Tarasenko is 6-2, 230, right? 

 

Dude's a beast!!!!

 

I think the main issue with this team isn't size, strength, or offense.  The problem is defending at 5v5 and also giving up WAY TOO MANY high danger chances.

 

Turnovers are causing a lot of it, and that East/West bullshit is a main culprit of that.  Again, this isn't anything you haven't posted before, @Pete, but you're right, and it's really glaring against teams like Boston, and probably will be also prominent against good transition teams like NJ, and Pittsburgh....also Carolina's forecheck will cause a lot of havoc.

[BrooksBurner]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

Prove? No that's silly.

 

But logic will tell me that 29-year-old 5-10, 180 Tro going up against 6-1, 210 Charlie McAvoy will likely sustain more wear and tear than 37-year-old Krejci going up against... Well, nobody who's likely to lay a body on him.

 

But that's not the game the Rangers should be trying to play anyway. 

Don’t know why you’d ignore the most feared blueline checker in the game in Trouba if going this route, but let’s pretend he doesn’t exist. McAvoy doesn’t wear anybody down anymore than Schneider or Lindgren.

Edited March 6, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

 

Dude's a beast!!!!

 

I think the main issue with this team isn't size, strength, or offense.  The problem is defending at 5v5 and also giving up WAY TOO MANY high danger chances.

 

Turnovers are causing a lot of it, and that East/West bullshit is a main culprit of that.  Again, this isn't anything you haven't posted before, @Pete, but you're right, and it's really glaring against teams like Boston, and probably will be also prominent against good transition teams like NJ, and Pittsburgh....also Carolina's forecheck will cause a lot of havoc.

When you can't defend and your goalie can't be dependent on to be anything other than League average right now, you're not going to look good.

 

Simply put, Igor needs to be Igor. Not that Igor he was last year, because that can't be an expectation, but he's a hell of a lot better than a .910 goalie. 

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Don’t knlw why you’d ignore the most feared blueline checker in the game in Trouba if going this route, but let’s pretend he doesn’t exist. McAvoy doesn’t wear anybody down anymore than Schneider or Lindgren.

I never said McAvoy was going to wear anybody down, but I know that Tro is going to wear himself down trying to hit people while they laugh at him. 

 

Trouba as open ice hitter has nothing to do with grinding a team down over a seven-game series. Krejci has been around long enough to know to avoid Trouba. 

 

And if you're depending on borderline hits to win you series again, then you've got a separate set of issues. 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Pete

[LindG1000]

The single most important changes that can happen in the next six weeks are:

 

Tarasenko fully clicking - and this looks in progress

Kane fully clicking

Defense doing better work supporting Igor in the DZ

[BrooksBurner]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

I never said McAvoy was going to wear anybody down, but I know that Tro is going to wear himself down trying to hit people while they laugh at him. 

 

Trouba as open ice hitter has nothing to do with grinding a team down over a seven-game series. Krejci has been around long enough to know to avoid Trouba. 

 

And if you're depending on borderline hits to win you series again, then you've got a separate set of issues. 

 

 

You said:

 

Quote

29-year-old 5-10, 180 Tro going up against 6-1, 210 Charlie McAvoy will likely sustain more wear and tear

 

So is your official stance “Trocheck will wear his own body out by checking <insert name of anyone bigger than him>”?