Friedman Clayton Keller's Future in Arizona Unclear

[Sod16]

Just wondering, after you trade Miller plus for Keller, what's your budget for a new D partner for Trouba?  Trouba with $1m guy could be one of the more exploitable second pairings around.  

[Keirik]

19 hours ago, The Dude said:

Holy shit guy. I said he's elite compared to Chytil. I said they play a similar game. I didn't say they produce the same. One is just better at the game than the other.

 

What's the disconnect? Keller is better than Chytil.  That's why I'd be trading Chytil and Lafrenière for him. I clearly said he's the upgrade. "Lower tier skill for upper tier skill". 

 

As for the center thing. I recall he started as a center, but I definitely thought he played way more than that. So, sorry for that. 

I could really do without the holy shit guy part. When you post on a message board, it’s implied you are willing to have a discussion. Relax my friend. You implied that adding Keller is just more of the same which I highly disagree with. Anytime it’s an elite version, it’s not “more of the same.” It’s adding a level of what we don’t have. Add in that it’s at a position we are extremely thin at.  You then mentioned Hyman and would prefer a different style addition. I mean, maybe?  It’s a message board. We are here to discuss and debate.  Not sure what the issue is 

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, Keirik said:

I could really do without the holy shit guy part. When you post on a message board, it’s implied you are willing to have a discussion. Relax my friend. You implied that adding Keller is just more of the same which I highly disagree with. Anytime it’s an elite version, it’s not “more of the same.” It’s adding a level of what we don’t have. Add in that it’s at a position we are extremely thin at.  You then mentioned Hyman and would prefer a different style addition. I mean, maybe?  It’s a message board. We are here to discuss and debate.  Not sure what the issue is 

Issue is you just keep missing the point and see certain phrases and for some reason latch on to that, while failing to see the main objective. 

 

The Rangers need more grit. They have enough skill. 

[Keirik]

4 hours ago, The Dude said:

Issue is you just keep missing the point and see certain phrases and for some reason latch on to that, while failing to see the main objective. 

 

The Rangers need more grit. They have enough skill. 

And I disagree so I think it’s best to stop with the rhetoric and just discuss the hockey. If you can’t do that, don’t reply.  Apparently Drury isn’t set on our skill either since he tried to add skill twice in a row at deadline. I’m not missing your point. I just think it’s fairly incorrect. It’s a conversation about an elite talent in Keller. He’s eons better than anyone we have on RW and is very young. 

[The Dude]

18 hours ago, Keirik said:

And I disagree so I think it’s best to stop with the rhetoric and just discuss the hockey. If you can’t do that, don’t reply.  Apparently Drury isn’t set on our skill either since he tried to add skill twice in a row at deadline. I’m not missing your point. I just think it’s fairly incorrect. It’s a conversation about an elite talent in Keller. He’s eons better than anyone we have on RW and is very young. 

Drury was set on getting the shiny toy at a bargain price. It didn't work out. It worked horribly.  The Rangers sat back and admittedly waited for the new guys to do something big. 

 

Last year when they acquired the type of players that are needed by a finnese, soft, skill team, to push to the next level, they clicked. Everything was on track. They had balance.  Vatrano and Copp were what the Dr ordered.  How'd that team do compared to the super skilled team?

 

I don't blame Drury for getting Kane. The price was right and the expectations for his playoff history was certainly attractive. I'd bet Dolan was on him to do it too. But a lot of people knew it wasn't the right move.  To say Drury thinks the Rangers need more skill is a big assumption. It's not a truth and you can't bring that as some fact because you want it to be true.  

 

If that's the team you want to put on the ice. Good for you. But don't act like you know what Drury wants or wanted, in an effort to try to base your opinion on fact. 

 

I got frustrated with you because you were putting words in my mouth. That's what happened.. Don't go with this rhetoric stuff, because you decided to not let what I said sink in and you went running with  part of what I said in a context or manner that was not at all what I said. 

 

The discussion I was making is that the Rangers are soft at forward . Adding another soft player, without subtracting a soft player,  makes them incredibly soft. The  addition in talent,  isn't going to cure how baby shit soft this forward group is.  My opinion stated clearly meant that if you add Keller, you have to subtract Chytil and or Lafrenière. 

 

Somehow your opinion wins over mine. Because you say so, then try to say Drury says so too. Talk about Rhetoric.  

 

 

 

[Keirik]

7 hours ago, The Dude said:

Drury was set on getting the shiny toy at a bargain price. It didn't work out. It worked horribly.  The Rangers sat back and admittedly waited for the new guys to do something big. 

 

Last year when they acquired the type of players that are needed by a finnese, soft, skill team, to push to the next level, they clicked. Everything was on track. They had balance.  Vatrano and Copp were what the Dr ordered.  How'd that team do compared to the super skilled team?

 

I don't blame Drury for getting Kane. The price was right and the expectations for his playoff history was certainly attractive. I'd bet Dolan was on him to do it too. But a lot of people knew it wasn't the right move.  To say Drury thinks the Rangers need more skill is a big assumption. It's not a truth and you can't bring that as some fact because you want it to be true.  

 

If that's the team you want to put on the ice. Good for you. But don't act like you know what Drury wants or wanted, in an effort to try to base your opinion on fact. 

 

I got frustrated with you because you were putting words in my mouth. That's what happened.. Don't go with this rhetoric stuff, because you decided to not let what I said sink in and you went running with  part of what I said in a context or manner that was not at all what I said. 

 

The discussion I was making is that the Rangers are soft at forward . Adding another soft player, without subtracting a soft player,  makes them incredibly soft. The  addition in talent,  isn't going to cure how baby shit soft this forward group is.  My opinion stated clearly meant that if you add Keller, you have to subtract Chytil and or Lafrenière. 

 

Somehow your opinion wins over mine. Because you say so, then try to say Drury says so too. Talk about Rhetoric.  

 

 

 

Geez, where to start. I’ve offered Miller + Laf for Keller. Both guys going the other way are fairly soft. My opinion doesn’t win over yours. My opinion is just different than yours. I’m not the one that regularly gets bent out of shape whenever this kind of thing comes up. When you start off a post with “holy shit guy,” you are already showing some strange behavior. 
 

As for acting like I know what Drury wanted or wants, I just go on what he’s brought in here. He brought in Kane. He brought in Tarasenko. He brought in Copp. He brought in Vatrano. He resigned Chytil. He traded Reaves. He traded Blais. None of those guys are some big change of team philosophy. Drury did those acquisitions though. Seems like there is a pattern here. They are either elite offensive talent wise or complimentary offensive guys. Some kind of grind from time to time like Copp did or maybe Tarasenko ? They aren’t grinders at all however. I’m pretty confident that he traded for top 6 talent because….…….that exactly what he did.  
 

 But regardless, your argument is so ridiculously flawed. Bringing in Keller isn’t going for a bag of pucks. It’s for talent that is reasonably cost effective. You’re saying the team is “too soft already” to obtain an elite talent but you’re completely ignoring that they would need to trade talented softer guys on our roster to obtain Keller who solves a position problem, is very young, and is elite at his position. 

 

but again, I’m discussing the hockey part of your posts. You’re discussing my disagreement and adding in some personal stuff that just is silly. Holy shit guy isn’t needed. We don’t need that part of a post. Move on. 

[Cash or Czech]

The holes on this team are evident. 1RW and 2RW. That's why, as @Keirik pointed out, we've gone out at the last two deadlines and acquired four RWs. I think Keller makes a lot of sense to solve one of those holes, and have Kakko build on his 40 point season to solve the other.

 

The bigger issue IMO is the cap space. We become an Edmonton or a Toronto where we are so top loaded on salary that we can't afford to get quality pieces for the rest of our lineup.

[Long live the King]

1 hour ago, Cash or Czech said:

The holes on this team are evident. 1RW and 2RW. That's why, as @Keirik pointed out, we've gone out at the last two deadlines and acquired four RWs. I think Keller makes a lot of sense to solve one of those holes, and have Kakko build on his 40 point season to solve the other.

 

The bigger issue IMO is the cap space. We become an Edmonton or a Toronto where we are so top loaded on salary that we can't afford to get quality pieces for the rest of our lineup.

 

In terms of SF% and CF%, Krider-Zib-Kakko owned the puck 5v5.  Shame GG didn't leave them together.

[phillyb]

2 hours ago, Cash or Czech said:

The holes on this team are evident. 1RW and 2RW. That's why, as @Keirik pointed out, we've gone out at the last two deadlines and acquired four RWs. I think Keller makes a lot of sense to solve one of those holes, and have Kakko build on his 40 point season to solve the other.

 

The bigger issue IMO is the cap space. We become an Edmonton or a Toronto where we are so top loaded on salary that we can't afford to get quality pieces for the rest of our lineup.

 

Thank god we have a goalie and *checks notes* Trouba 

[RJWantsTheCup]

1 hour ago, Long live the King said:

 

In terms of SF% and CF%, Krider-Zib-Kakko owned the puck 5v5.  Shame GG didn't leave them together.

Kreider - Zibby - Kakko could be a decent enough first line.

It's who plays RW with Panarin that's a question.

[RichieNextel305]

1 hour ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Kreider - Zibby - Kakko could be a decent enough first line.

It's who plays RW with Panarin that's a question.

I still stand by my sentiment to give Lafreniere the opportunity to play up with Mika and Kakko. At least to start. This puts Kreider with Trocheck, who he also played well with. Kreider will still get his cookies on PP1 in front too. This gives Lafreniere a legit shot to play on his strong side on a Top Line for the first time. At some point, it needs to be tried.
 

As for RW with Panarin, I still think Kane is the most realistic and most viable option. It busted, but not really, because Gallant gave them 5 minutes together before tearing it down and refusing to play them together at 5v5. I think a healthy Kane can do tremendous things for us, if he is willing to stay at a discount. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by RichieNextel305

[RJWantsTheCup]

In my world Lafraniere is jettisoned for a top 6 RW or C.  I’ve seen enough of him.  I want to win now not wait and see.  

[jsm7302]

8 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I still stand by my sentiment to give Lafreniere the opportunity to play up with Mika and Kakko. At least to start. This puts Kreider with Trocheck, who he also played well with. Kreider will still get his cookies on PP1 in front too. This gives Lafreniere a legit shot to play on his strong side on a Top Line for the first time. At some point, it needs to be tried.
 

As for RW with Panarin, I still think Kane is the most realistic and most viable option. It busted, but not really, because Gallant gave them 5 minutes together before tearing it down and refusing to play them together at 5v5. I think a healthy Kane can do tremendous things for us, if he is willing to stay at a discount. 

It isn't a discount; it is charity for what we would need him to accept.

[RichieNextel305]

2 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

It isn't a discount; it is charity for what we would need him to accept.

You can’t tell me he didn’t do his homework on the Rangers. It was over a year of rumors about him and us, and over a year of him wanting only to be here. He knew he was an impending UFA and he knew he wanted to come here. I’d imagine he knew that to stay as a free agent, he’d have to take a bath. We’re still a Cup contender that plays in his home state. I wouldn’t rule out him taking it on the chin for a year or 2 to take a shot at a Cup in a big market close to home and to prove he’s healthy.

[jsm7302]

Just now, RichieNextel305 said:

You can’t tell me he didn’t do his homework on the Rangers. It was over a year of rumors about him and us, and over a year of him wanting only to be here. He knew he was an impending UFA and he knew he wanted to come here. I’d imagine he knew that to stay as a free agent, he’d have to take a bath. We’re still a Cup contender that plays in his home state. I wouldn’t rule out him taking it on the chin for a year or 2 to take a shot at a Cup in a big market close to home and to prove he’s healthy.

Interesting points; it would be something if he took a two year deal (but honestly we only have a couple mil)  and then continued to produce and moved on after two years if a championship doesn't come to fruition here. $126mil career earnings at this point so maybe $$ isn't his primary concern.

[RichieNextel305]

2 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

Interesting points; it would be something if he took a two year deal (but honestly we only have a couple mil)  and then continued to produce and moved on after two years if a championship doesn't come to fruition here. $126mil career earnings at this point so maybe $$ isn't his primary concern.

He’s made a ton, like you said. He strikes me as someone who would value playing for a Cup contender and in a big market over making the most $$$.

 

And I know he wasn’t 100% here. But I really do think with this hip thing being taken care of that he can get back to being what he usually is, which is a legit game changer. I’d be looking at that option pretty strongly if I were Drury, considering our cap issues.

[Pete]

The answer lies within.

 

Laf Zib Kakko

Panarin Chytil Goodrow

Kreider Tro Vesey

Cullye Brodzinski Motte

[siddious]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

The answer lies within.

 

Laf Zib Kakko

Panarin Chytil Goodrow

Kreider Tro Vesey

Cullye Brodzinski Motte

Won’t be a 110pt season but light be exactly what this team needs 

[RichieNextel305]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

The answer lies within.

 

Laf Zib Kakko

Panarin Chytil Goodrow

Kreider Tro Vesey

Cullye Brodzinski Motte

I think that is going too much down the grit road. There just is not enough offense in that lineup unless 13 and 24 both together take gigantic leaps.

 

I would be okay with Kane taking Goodrows spot on that 2RW slot and leaving the rest as is. To me that gives you a little cushion in the event the Laffy and Kakko don’t produce the way you’d hope.

[Ozzy]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

The answer lies within.

 

Laf Zib Kakko

Panarin Chytil Goodrow

Kreider Tro Vesey

Cullye Brodzinski Motte

 

 

I like this...I can dig that.  Like Pete Siddious said...may not be 110 points, but it gets in and can play a playoff style...as long as our coach isn't a fucking steaming turd.

[BrooksBurner]

6 hours ago, Pete said:

The answer lies within.

 

Laf Zib Kakko

Panarin Chytil Goodrow

Kreider Tro Vesey

Cullye Brodzinski Motte

 

Who really thinks this brings about a different result? Feels like you missed the last couple of seasons.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I think that is going too much down the grit road. There just is not enough offense in that lineup unless 13 and 24 both together take gigantic leaps.

 

I would be okay with Kane taking Goodrows spot on that 2RW slot and leaving the rest as is. To me that gives you a little cushion in the event the Laffy and Kakko don’t produce the way you’d hope.

 

The top 6 needs more speed on the forecheck as much as it needs grit. Every single wing in that top 6 is slower than dirt. The one wing who actually has speed was moved down because of a long standing personal vendetta some folks have against Kreider.

 

Goodrow isn't a guy who gets in on the forecheck. He's too slow and doesn't fill that need whatsoever. Even for those who are believers in Panarin being able to get it done in the playoffs, Goodrow is the opposite of what's needed on his line. He needs the speedy forchecker who gets to the puck ala Fast. The Rangers don't have that option in house. Motte is as close as it gets and he's not nearly effective enough in any facet of the game except PK.

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Who really thinks this brings about a different result? Feels like you missed the last couple of seasons.

Feels like you missed the part where GG was the problem, that's why he's not here anymore. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I think that is going too much down the grit road. There just is not enough offense in that lineup unless 13 and 24 both together take gigantic leaps.

 

I would be okay with Kane taking Goodrows spot on that 2RW slot and leaving the rest as is. To me that gives you a little cushion in the event the Laffy and Kakko don’t produce the way you’d hope.

Realistically they're not able to afford Kane. At this point it's a pipe dream unless they plan on moving Goodrow, and that would be a mistake. 

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

The top 6 needs more speed on the forecheck as much as it needs grit. Every single wing in that top 6 is slower than dirt. The one wing who actually has speed was moved down because of a long standing personal vendetta some folks have against Kreider.

 

Goodrow isn't a guy who gets in on the forecheck. He's too slow and doesn't fill that need whatsoever. Even for those who are believers in Panarin being able to get it done in the playoffs, Goodrow is the opposite of what's needed on his line. He needs the speedy forchecker who gets to the puck ala Fast. The Rangers don't have that option in house. Motte is as close as it gets and he's not nearly effective enough in any facet of the game except PK.

There is a negligible difference in speed between Fast and Goodrow. You don't need fast players to play fast.

 

The issue with your entire argument is that it's predicated on the notion that a new coach won't have any effect at all on the same roster. Well Craig Berube would like a word.