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

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Again with the points.  Kan vwas invisible. Meirer was extremely noticeable and drew attention.  That's way more valuable than Kanes 1 goal and 5 assists in his mind numbing bumbling around put there. 

 

You're almost right with Tarasenko.  I see them as similar, but just different. You won't see Tarasenko barreling over goalies or being chippy. He certainly does go to the dirty areas of the ice though. 

 

I saw Meier as the player Chris Kreider was back in 14. Not overly productive on the scoresheet,  but made a huge difference in what the other team did to combat what he was doing infront of their net. I'll take any net crashers over what Kane provided on the scoresheet as a Ranger. He was useless.  

But at the end of the day neither of the three players you're mentioning here were effective, I don't understand why you think Meier would have been effective here. 

[Keirik]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

 

Well if points is all that matters Panarin was a god last post season with 16 points in 20 games. 

 

Meirer constantly steamrolling Shesterkin certainly affected his mindset. Shesterkin was constantly concerned with trying to feel who was going to make contact with him on any given opportunity.

 

Of all people, Miller finally did something in game 7 about the goalie running,  when he over reacted to a Devil making contact with Shesterkin when he ventured out to play the puck.   (Miller) Taking a stupid penalty to face wash a guy down on the ice against the boards. 

 

If you dont think the net crashing helped the Devils set the tone and atmosphere of the game, I don't think we can honestly talk about the game of hockey.  It's pretty much what turned the tide and made the Rangers look foolish by not adapting or having an answer to, in the form of doing it right back. Had anyone done anything similar to Schmid,  the outcome is very likely different.  

 

Shesterkin took one penalty for punching Meirer in his crease. In another game he also wandered out to a scuffle in back of the net to shove him from behind. I don't remember if had gotten a penalty for it, but it was no doubt due to his frustration with him. 

 

Where did I say Meirer had him floundering? I didn't.  I said he may have had him off his game a little bit.  Wandering out if the crease to go after a guy, kinda wins my point. Meirer played a role that didn't show up on the scoresheet.  The Rangers severely lack players that you can say the same for. ITheyre a bunch of guys, that if they aren't scoring, are pretty much not doing anything extra to contribute to a productive product on the ice. Meirer couldn't score, but got under the Rangers skin. Not sure how you don't understand that this is a contribution. 

 

 

Again with the mental gymnastics. Yes Meier had him so off his game that Shesty only managed to post a .931 save % in 7 games. Let's agree to disagree. I think it's nuts to claim Meier was some serious factor in the series. You don't. We move on. I'm not sure how you think the way you do. You aren't sure how I think the way I think. 

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I made up his exit interview? 

Alright.

  

 

You made up an interpretation of what you think he was saying in his exit interview. He's not stupid, he knows the Rangers don't have cap. 

[Br4d]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

Remind me who controls that? Oh, right GG.

This is by far the hottest take yet. Drury's job is the get good players and it's GG's job to use what he's given. Drury succeeded and GG didn't.

 

You're now going to absurd lengths to absolve GG.

 

I'm not absolving GG.  I'm just saying that making him the witch in the situation ignores the fact that the townspeople all sucked when it mattered.

 

Some day, hopefully not soon, you're going to look back at 217 points over two regular seasons and ask yourself how that happened with such a 'bad' coach behind the bench.

 

My reasoned determination is that this Rangers team was not built with playoff hockey in mind with too many players that were capable of playing one speed only.  My further determination is that the Rangers have not been good at even strength over the two seasons in question and have relied heavily on goal tending and the power play for their success over that span.

 

Given that a third of the roster seems to be entitled vets playing at the speed they want too and a third is young guys struggling to break out I don't begrudge the Rangers the change at HC.  I just somewhat doubt that the next guy is going to manage the breakout that is needed and I *highly* doubt that we're looking at 217 points over the next two seasons under his tutelage.  I hope I am wrong but the way this went down really bodes poorly for what comes next.

 

Of course Drury could trade Lafreniere/Miller and hire a vet retread HC and kind of guarantee the ship sinks but I'm guessing he has other plans in mind.  At least I hope so.

[BrooksBurner]

45 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I'm not absolving GG.  I'm just saying that making him the witch in the situation ignores the fact that the townspeople all sucked when it mattered.

 

Some day, hopefully not soon, you're going to look back at 217 points over two regular seasons and ask yourself how that happened with such a 'bad' coach behind the bench.

 

My reasoned determination is that this Rangers team was not built with playoff hockey in mind with too many players that were capable of playing one speed only.  My further determination is that the Rangers have not been good at even strength over the two seasons in question and have relied heavily on goal tending and the power play for their success over that span.

 

Given that a third of the roster seems to be entitled vets playing at the speed they want too and a third is young guys struggling to break out I don't begrudge the Rangers the change at HC.  I just somewhat doubt that the next guy is going to manage the breakout that is needed and I *highly* doubt that we're looking at 217 points over the next two seasons under his tutelage.  I hope I am wrong but the way this went down really bodes poorly for what comes next.

 

Of course Drury could trade Lafreniere/Miller and hire a vet retread HC and kind of guarantee the ship sinks but I'm guessing he has other plans in mind.  At least I hope so.

From your lips to God’s ears sir. The thing with the players under 25-26 is they can change and develop into better players. 

It’s a lost cause for Art Vandelay in the playoffs at 32 y.o. and I’m singling him out because, if everyone is actually honest for a minute, he’s the vet we are all talking about when we say vets who play at one speed. We aren’t talking about Kreider or Zibanejad. Kreider elevated his play this year and Zibanejad last year. What vets are left? Trouba? He’s not the problem in the playoffs. Who else? One left. Art.

Edited May 13, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

45 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I'm not absolving GG.  I'm just saying that making him the witch in the situation ignores the fact that the townspeople all sucked when it mattered.

 

Some day, hopefully not soon, you're going to look back at 217 points over two regular seasons and ask yourself how that happened with such a 'bad' coach behind the bench.

 

My reasoned determination is that this Rangers team was not built with playoff hockey in mind with too many players that were capable of playing one speed only.  My further determination is that the Rangers have not been good at even strength over the two seasons in question and have relied heavily on goal tending and the power play for their success over that span.

 

Given that a third of the roster seems to be entitled vets playing at the speed they want too and a third is young guys struggling to break out I don't begrudge the Rangers the change at HC.  I just somewhat doubt that the next guy is going to manage the breakout that is needed and I *highly* doubt that we're looking at 217 points over the next two seasons under his tutelage.  I hope I am wrong but the way this went down really bodes poorly for what comes next.

 

Of course Drury could trade Lafreniere/Miller and hire a vet retread HC and kind of guarantee the ship sinks but I'm guessing he has other plans in mind.  At least I hope so.

This is all over the place, first you blaming Drury, now you're blaming everybody, it's really hard to even understand where you're coming from.

 

The entitled vets narrative is also tired and stale. Do Zib and Kreider look like entitled veterans? They were both about to cry when they lost. Specify exactly who in this scenario you feel is entitled and then specify why you think they're entitled, because you're throwing out a lot of accusations with not a lot of data to back it up. 

 

I had my complaints about Gallant, which were all confirmed by at least some type of data. 

 

You're just off on one right now and you're just stating your opinion as if it's a fact. 

[Pete]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

From your lips to God’s ears sir. The thing with the players under 25-26 is they can change and develop into better players. 

It’s a lost cause for Art Vandelay in the playoffs at 32 y.o. and I’m singling him out because, if everyone is actually honest for a minute, he’s the vet we are all talking about when we say vets who play at one speed. We aren’t talking about Kreider or Zibanejad. Kreider elevated his play this year and Zibanejad last year. What vets are left? Trouba? He’s not the problem in the playoffs. Who else? One left. Art.

You're singling him out because you feel like singling him out because you're still mad. We're in a thread about Patrick Kane and you're still bringing him into it.

 

I'm hoping by Memorial Day you will move past it. If not, you've got to go on ignore for the summer. Sorry. 

[BrooksBurner]

13 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're singling him out because you feel like singling him out because you're still mad. We're in a thread about Patrick Kane and you're still bringing him into it.

 

I'm hoping by Memorial Day you will move past it. If not, you've got to go on ignore for the summer. Sorry. 

 

6 hours ago, Pete said:

For what? GG controls his deployment, and if others were waiting for him to do something, that's on them, not him.

 

6 hours ago, Pete said:

Remind me who controls that? Oh, right GG.

This is by far the hottest take yet. Drury's job is the get good players and it's GG's job to use what he's given. Drury succeeded and GG didn't.

 

You're now going to absurd lengths to absolve GG.

 

It’s your fault because you started whining about GG again that it derailed the conversation…again. I don’t know what you have against me mentioning Art Vandelay anyway.

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

 

 

It’s your fault because you started whining about GG again that it derailed the conversation…again. I don’t know what you have against me mentioning Art Vandelay anyway.

I was talking about GG's deployment of...Patrick Kane.... In a thread named "Rangers Acquire...
 Patrick Kane ...
From Blackhawks for 2023 Conditional 2nd Round Pick and a 4th Round Pick"

[Abe Froman]

Patrick Panarin. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I was talking about GG's deployment of...Patrick Kane.... In a thread named "Rangers Acquire...
 Patrick Kane ...
From Blackhawks for 2023 Conditional 2nd Round Pick and a 4th Round Pick"

 

The only things I blame GG for with respect to deploying Patrick Kane is he kept him with Panarin on PP1 too long when it wasn't working, and he demoted Kane instead of Panarin when it was clear the puck was dying on Panarin's stick with the cross seam pass completely taken away. We might have seen some more Kane magic on the PP if GG had a pair of balls to do what was necessary.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

The only things I blame GG for with respect to deploying Patrick Kane is he kept him with Panarin on PP1 too long when it wasn't working, and he demoted Kane instead of Panarin when it was clear the puck was dying on Panarin's stick with the cross seam pass completely taken away. We might have seen some more Kane magic on the PP if GG had a pair of balls to do what was necessary.

"Here's my weak attempt to contribute to a Kane conversation by ragging on Panarin more."

 

[BrooksBurner]

11 hours ago, Pete said:

"Here's my weak attempt to contribute to a Kane conversation by ragging on Panarin more."

 

I said the same thing during the regular season and again during the series, before the Panarin vanishing act was concluded. It was proven to be correct and is a stronger argument that puts the onus on both players and coach, rather than just scapegoating the coach like you incorrectly do.

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

I said the same thing during the regular season and again during the series, before the Panarin vanishing act was concluded. It was proven to be correct and is a stronger argument that puts the onus on both players and coach, rather than just scapegoating the coach like you incorrectly do.

 

It's easier to fire the coach than the players.  On the Rangers it is *much* easier.

 

 

[Pete]

Counterpoint, the coach deserved to be fired.

[Br4d]

Your counterpoint is an opinion not a fact.

[Long live the King]

21 minutes ago, Br4d said:

Your counterpoint is an opinion not a fact.

 

Is it an opinion when he did in fact get fired? 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Long live the King said:

 

Is it an opinion when he did in fact get fired? 

 

Shesterkin lost. Did he deserve to lose?

[Long live the King]

23 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Shesterkin lost. Did he deserve to lose?

 

Not even close to the same thing. Winning and losing is a competition where both side are trying to win, but only one can.  A coach getting fired is the GM recognizing that change is needed and making a decision. 

 

No, Shesterkin didn't deserve to lose.  He played fantastic; however, the team deserved to lose because the coach failed to make adjustments, exploit favorable match ups, and install an effective system.   

 

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Long live the King

[BrooksBurner]

36 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

Not even close to the same thing. Winning and losing is a competition where both side are trying to win, but only one can.  A coach getting fired is the GM recognizing that change is needed and making a decision. 

 

No, Shesterkin didn't deserve to lose.  He played fantastic; however, the team deserved to lose because the coach failed to make adjustments, exploit favorable match ups, and install an effective system.   

 

 

So what?

 

Fact: Gallant got fired.

Opinion: Gallant deserved to get fired.

 

Your post was a false equivalence.

[Pete]

4 hours ago, Br4d said:

Your counterpoint is an opinion not a fact.

 

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

So what?

 

Fact: Gallant got fired.

Opinion: Gallant deserved to get fired.

 

Your post was a false equivalence.

Guys, you're wrong just accepted and move on. It happens. It never happens to me, but it happens to the rest of you guys regularly. I'm surprised you're not more used to it by now. 

[BrooksBurner]

55 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

Guys, you're wrong just accepted and move on. It happens. It never happens to me, but it happens to the rest of you guys regularly. I'm surprised you're not more used to it by now. 

Put the beer down and help your wife. It’s Mother’s day. You’re not supposed to get shitfaced.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Put the beer down and help your wife. It’s Mother’s day. You’re not supposed to get shitfaced.

Help her what? I sent her to a spa.

 

Once again, you're showing you have no idea how this all works. 

 

You just keep embarrassing yourself. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Pete

[LindG1000]

4 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

So what?

 

Fact: Gallant got fired.

Opinion: Gallant deserved to get fired.

 

Your post was a false equivalence.

 

Did you think the Rangers played well in the games they lost?

 

Because Gallant said - more than once! - that he did. And that alone means that either one of two things had to be true. Either Gallant saw what was happening on-ice as a successful implementation of his strategy (in which case he should be fired) or Gallant has absolutely no sense for how to read a game and make adjustments (in which case, he should be fired).

 

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Did you think the Rangers played well in the games they lost?

 

Because Gallant said - more than once! - that he did. And that alone means that either one of two things had to be true. Either Gallant saw what was happening on-ice as a successful implementation of his strategy (in which case he should be fired) or Gallant has absolutely no sense for how to read a game and make adjustments (in which case, he should be fired).

 

 

I thought they played a pretty good game in G3, but that's besides the point. I thought he deserved to get fired because he failed in enough key areas over his two years here, but that's not a fact. That's just my opinion. I can see why folks might think otherwise and have a legitimate case that he didn't deserve it. That's all.