Seravalli Rangers Gauging Interest in Barclay Goodrow

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Long live the King said:

 

Panarin/Trocheck's most common 3rd wheel was offwing Laf.  That was well before the TDL.  If GG didn't force that for so long and gave that time to Vesey there's a good chance they don't make the trade for Kane.

And...Drury ruined it... by adding Vlad Tarasenko....Because 32/32 GMS wouldn't have done that.

[BrooksBurner]

31 minutes ago, Phil said:

If they do trade him, my guess is it's to split his money in a couple of free agent signings. Vince mentioned on his latest pod that he expects the Rangers to pick up "one or two" guys to stop gap while guys like Sykora, Berard, etc. develop and are "fully ready."

 

Mentioned Hathaway and Fast by name, but only Hathaway is maybe affordable.

 

They can probably fit both with Goodrow out if they wanted to.

[Ozzy]

Goodrow to me is THAT guy that as soon as you trade him....You need a guy like him.

 

Fast is a good example of that I thought.

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

And...Drury ruined it... by adding Vlad Tarasenko....Because 32/32 GMS wouldn't have done that.

 

It was the Patrick Kane addition that screwed the pooch.  The team was adjusting to the Tarasenko add and then the Kane add threw everything up in the air again and it never landed after that.

[LindG1000]

8 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

It was the Patrick Kane addition that screwed the pooch.  The team was adjusting to the Tarasenko add and then the Kane add threw everything up in the air again and it never landed after that.

 

Because what GM was turning down those two players at those prices?

 

He'd have been rightly fired for passing on either deal, let alone both. The idea that we shouldn't have traded for Kane or Tarasenko is pure hindsight and completely mindboggling.

 

Drury gave Gallant talent he couldn't have fucked up if he tried, and Gallant took that challenge very personally.

[Ozzy]

3 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Because what GM was turning down those two players at those prices?

 

He'd have been rightly fired for passing on either deal, let alone both. The idea that we shouldn't have traded for Kane or Tarasenko is pure hindsight and completely mindboggling.

 

Drury gave Gallant talent he couldn't have fucked up if he tried, and Gallant took that challenge very personally.

 

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

It was the Patrick Kane addition that screwed the pooch.  The team was adjusting to the Tarasenko add and then the Kane add threw everything up in the air again and it never landed after that.

Tarasenko took Vesey spot on the top line. 

[BrooksBurner]

23 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

Goodrow to me is THAT guy that as soon as you trade him....You need a guy like him.

 

Fast is a good example of that I thought.

I agree. I’ve also said they need more guys like Goodrow, not less, but they can probably get two guys “like” him in his wake. Guys who have the hard nosed, high compete traits.

[LindG1000]

3 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I agree. I’ve also said they need more guys like Goodrow, not less, but they can probably get two guys “like” him in his wake. Guys who have the hard nosed, high compete traits.

And they're everywhere in FA this season. In a tight market.

[BrooksBurner]

26 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

It was the Patrick Kane addition that screwed the pooch.  The team was adjusting to the Tarasenko add and then the Kane add threw everything up in the air again and it never landed after that.

Yup, there were some guys on here against the Kane move and they deserve serious props for sticking by that opinion when the trade was rumored to be going down.

 

People complaining about Gallant not slotting Vesey over Kane or Tarasenko is incredible. It’s that blind “blame Gallant for everything” hate kicking in.

[Phil]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

They can probably fit both with Goodrow out if they wanted to.

 

Eh, I still don't really see how, but this is highly dependent on what you think Miller ultimately signs for.

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Ozzy said:

Goodrow to me is THAT guy that as soon as you trade him....You need a guy like him.

 

Fast is a good example of that I thought.

 

Probably, yup. They need more Goodrows, not fewer, but it's a numbers game.

[Pete]

29 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Yup, there were some guys on here against the Kane move and they deserve serious props for sticking by that opinion when the trade was rumored to be going down.

 

People complaining about Gallant not slotting Vesey over Kane or Tarasenko is incredible. It’s that blind “blame Gallant for everything” hate kicking in.

No, your complaint about Drury fucking up by bringing in Kane is incredible. Not only would 32/32 GMs done that, but GG fucked up a working PP.

[Long live the King]

39 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Yup, there were some guys on here against the Kane move and they deserve serious props for sticking by that opinion when the trade was rumored to be going down.

 

People complaining about Gallant not slotting Vesey over Kane or Tarasenko is incredible. It’s that blind “blame Gallant for everything” hate kicking in.

 

Who said anything about Vesey slotting over Tarasenko or Kane?

[Sod16]

If he's really shopping Goodrow, I wonder what that says about what's happening with his negotiations with Miller.

[BrooksBurner]

2 hours ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Because what GM was turning down those two players at those prices?

 

He'd have been rightly fired for passing on either deal, let alone both. The idea that we shouldn't have traded for Kane or Tarasenko is pure hindsight and completely mindboggling.

 

Drury gave Gallant talent he couldn't have fucked up if he tried, and Gallant took that challenge very personally.

 

There were plenty who did not think Kane fit the roster after the Tarasenko trade. They were also worried he was damaged goods. It wasn't a universally praised move, and it's not hindsight for those who were against it. They were right. You...and I...were wrong. It's that simple.

 

It should be a learning lesson for everyone that too much of one thing is not good. Instead, double down on the Gallant blame game. Too funny. Never change Rangers fans!

Edited June 21, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[The Dude]

7 hours ago, Drew a Penalty said:

Jimm Vesey isn’t the same player he was in his last stint here. If you don’t think he’s any better or has changed his approach then you’re not watching close enough or not watching the right thing.

Vesey fell off the map after leaving here, although it can be debated on whether he ever got on the map to begin with. Looking at the stats and the ice times, he's putting up similar numbers  and total ice times as his "prime" years, when there was much Vesey hype.

 

Let's not kid ourselves into thinking hes better (a word you just used) though. 

 

Sure he's changed.  He's become a guy desperate to stay in the league  and it's forced him to become a more sound defensive player. Again he's not better. You don't become better after leaving here, then having your last 2 stints being PTO contracts, then signing an extension for league minimum.  

 

Vesey is a nice depth forward. Lets leave it at that. 10 goals, 10 assists.  A bunch of shifts where you can clap your hands and say, wow, solid play by Vesey. He shouldn't be counted on for top 6 or very much top 9 production. He's not much of an energy player,  he's not physical,  he's not dangerous on offense.  He's a really good 4th liner that has a few uses.

 

I don't see how that's some kind of insult. Did I leave something out?  What am I not watching that you can talk about that I didn't bring up? IDK,  maybe you value that stuff a lot more than I do.  

[The Dude]

7 hours ago, Long live the King said:

https://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/frozenpool_linecombo.php?select=F&forward=NYR%3A4256%3AARTEMI%3APANARIN&games=2022-2023%3AR%3A99&period=ALL&situation=EV

 

Look at the numbers of Panarin-Trocheck-Vesey.  No idea why GG wouldn't stick with it.  Panarin had his best seasons with Fast, Blackwell, and Hunt on the RW.  Numbers with Vesey were good but GG broke them up.  But I've been told coaching doesn't matter and it's all Panarin's fault.

There's no way Lafrenière was used as the Panarin RW longer than anyone else. That experiment last maybe 5 games. Maybe.  

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Because what GM was turning down those two players at those prices?

 

He'd have been rightly fired for passing on either deal, let alone both. The idea that we shouldn't have traded for Kane or Tarasenko is pure hindsight and completely mindboggling.

 

Drury gave Gallant talent he couldn't have fucked up if he tried, and Gallant took that challenge very personally.

Tarasenko trade was a must. Busted Kane? No.  There were better fits available that were moved before and after. The name Patrick Kane sure us tempting and I will not hold it against Drury for thinking acquiring a playoff performer such as him wouldn't hurt the teams chances. 

 

But even before the trade chatter, a bunch of us (including Pete, who loves Kane),  were saying it isn't the right move and the team needed a different style player. 

 

Kane was hurt and played like it. The severity of his injury was well known.  It wasn't the best idea. It pit a lot of pressure on Gallant.  What was he going to do? NOT play Kane? There was literally no other options.  None. 

[LindG1000]

48 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Tarasenko trade was a must. Busted Kane? No.  There were better fits available that were moved before and after. The name Patrick Kane sure us tempting and I will not hold it against Drury for thinking acquiring a playoff performer such as him wouldn't hurt the teams chances. 

 

But even before the trade chatter, a bunch of us (including Pete, who loves Kane),  were saying it isn't the right move and the team needed a different style player. 

 

Kane was hurt and played like it. The severity of his injury was well known.  It wasn't the best idea. It pit a lot of pressure on Gallant.  What was he going to do? NOT play Kane? There was literally no other options.  None. 

 

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

There were plenty who did not think Kane fit the roster after the Tarasenko trade. They were also worried he was damaged goods. It wasn't a universally praised move, and it's not hindsight for those who were against it. They were right. You...and I...were wrong. It's that simple.

 

It should be a learning lesson for everyone that too much of one thing is not good. Instead, double down on the Gallant blame game. Too funny. Never change Rangers fans!

 

There is not a playoff bound GM on the planet that would have turned down Kane for a conditional 1st. I mean, there are, I'm sure, but that's the decisionmaking that explains why they're unemployed.

 

It's simply wrong to insist otherwise, and if Drury refused this trade, we'd be sitting here saying we'd have gotten past the Devils if only Drury made that trade for Kane. Because at the end of the day, the problem wasn't Kane, nor was it Tarasenko.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

 

 

There is not a playoff bound GM on the planet that would have turned down Kane for a conditional 1st. I mean, there are, I'm sure, but that's the decisionmaking that explains why they're unemployed.

 

It's simply wrong to insist otherwise, and if Drury refused this trade, we'd be sitting here saying we'd have gotten past the Devils if only Drury made that trade for Kane. Because at the end of the day, the problem wasn't Kane, nor was it Tarasenko.

GG.

Hi.

He's the problem.

GG. 

[The Dude]

20 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

 

There is not a playoff bound GM on the planet that would have turned down Kane for a conditional 1st. I mean, there are, I'm sure, but that's the decisionmaking that explains why they're unemployed.

 

It's simply wrong to insist otherwise, and if Drury refused this trade, we'd be sitting here saying we'd have gotten past the Devils if only Drury made that trade for Kane. Because at the end of the day, the problem wasn't Kane, nor was it Tarasenko.

Meh. Kane was a problem (not THE problem). He was hurt, wasn't as effective as you would expect and his presence disrupted a working PP. He didn't fit. He didn't help. He wasn't Patrick Kane. 

 

Let's be real here. He wasn't going anywhere else. Not sure you're accurate in your theory, that every playoff bound GM wouldn't turn down Kane (obviously injured) for the price the Rangers paid.

 

I'd think some GMs wouldn't make their team go through what the Rangers did, to aquire a hurt player and handcuff their teams roster flexibility going into the playoffs. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by The Dude

[Br4d]

8 hours ago, Pete said:

Tarasenko took Vesey spot on the top line. 

 

What does this even mean?  You needed to take 30 seconds of your time to post something completely irrelevant to my comment?  Pete, it's ok if somebody is wrong on the internet occasionally.  You don't need to pop in on every comment that might be wrong with an irrelevant response.

 

I never said that I thought the Tarasenko deal was a bad move.  I thought it was a fine move and I thought line 1 was the obvious place for him to be.

 

I said the Kane move was a bad deal.  The guy was hurt and he was another juggling act for GG at a time when he was having trouble juggling the guys he already had and the kids shut down after he arrived because once again they were irrelevant in crunch time.

[Pete]

7 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

What does this even mean?  You needed to take 30 seconds of your time to post something completely irrelevant to my comment?  Pete, it's ok if somebody is wrong on the internet occasionally.  You don't need to pop in on every comment that might be wrong with an irrelevant response.

 

I never said that I thought the Tarasenko deal was a bad move.  I thought it was a fine move and I thought line 1 was the obvious place for him to be.

 

I said the Kane move was a bad deal.  The guy was hurt and he was another juggling act for GG at a time when he was having trouble juggling the guys he already had and the kids shut down after he arrived because once again they were irrelevant in crunch time.

You jumped into the middle of a Vesey conversation and quoted me where I was addressing a comment about Drury messing with Vesey in the top six. You made a comment about Kane, but VZ had already been replaced by Tara. 

 

So that's what that comment means And that's why it's relevant.

 

You didn't read the entire thread and jumped into a conversation midway. Don't come at me for that, that's on you. 

[LindG1000]

12 hours ago, The Dude said:

Meh. Kane was a problem (not THE problem). He was hurt, wasn't as effective as you would expect and his presence disrupted a working PP. He didn't fit. He didn't help. He wasn't Patrick Kane. 

 

Let's be real here. He wasn't going anywhere else. Not sure you're accurate in your theory, that every playoff bound GM wouldn't turn down Kane (obviously injured) for the price the Rangers paid.

 

I'd think some GMs wouldn't make their team go through what the Rangers did, to aquire a hurt player and handcuff their teams roster flexibility going into the playoffs. 

Homie, this is revisionist history at best and lying to yourself at worst. When you can acquire Patrick Kane for that cheap, you do it. Every single GM would have done this - it's not even a question worth asking. Eveni a hurt Kane is still Kane - even a hurt Kane put up 45 points in 54 games on a god-awful team trying to be god-awful. Even a hurt Kane put up 12 in 19 on a team where he was being saved for the playoffs. Hell. you wouldn't know it, but Showtime had 6 points in the playoffs. So one has to ask - when did the well dry that he shit the bed so hard in the playoffs?

 

Easy. Five points across games 1 and 2. Ruff adjusts. Gallant doesn't. Whole thing goes kaput. Same as Fox. Same as Panarin. Same as pretty much every player on this team not named Chris Kreider. 

 

This really isn't a hard puzzle to piece together. No matter how much we want to lay this season's failure at the feet of specific players, Gallant utterly fucked this team and was deservedly fired into the sun for it.