Rangers1994 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 Would it pay to bring back Patrick Kane to help out on Lines 1 or 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddious Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 It would pay… him. Probably a lot ore than the cap would allow for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers1994 Posted June 8 Author Share Posted June 8 2 minutes ago, siddious said: It would pay… him. Probably a lot ore than the cap would allow for. If the Rangers can get him at 1 year at $3.3 million, then maybe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddious Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 42 minutes ago, Rangers1994 said: If the Rangers can get him at 1 year at $3.3 million, then maybe.... He proved he can still play. I’m going to assume someone’s gonna give him 4-6mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers1994 Posted June 8 Author Share Posted June 8 9 minutes ago, siddious said: He proved he can still play. I’m going to assume someone’s gonna give him 4-6mil. Do you think the Rangers should? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddious Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 15 minutes ago, Rangers1994 said: Do you think the Rangers should? No. love the player but older is not what this team needs to get. Nor do they need more high end talent that doesn’t go to the dirty areas. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keirik Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 I actually think this may be possible. I think he would take less to take a shot at the Cup. If the Rangers were ever to be interested, you can make the case that there isn’t a better team for him to go to where he can be put in a position to win. I think if the Rangers came calling with a 1-year deal, he would listen more than he’d listen on other teams. And if we don’t make a move to free up room, he is the type of player who may fit our budget AAV wise. And if we’re looking for puck distributors who can finish? Yeah he may not be 6’4, but he can still finish, and can still distribute. I also think he would want to show out better than he did in Tour 1. Mika line. PP2, not force fed PP1. Could be worth keeping an eye on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistercosmic Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 10 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said: I actually think this may be possible. I think he would take less to take a shot at the Cup. If the Rangers were ever to be interested, you can make the case that there isn’t a better team for him to go to where he can be put in a position to win. I think if the Rangers came calling with a 1-year deal, he would listen more than he’d listen on other teams. And if we don’t make a move to free up room, he is the type of player who may fit our budget AAV wise. And if we’re looking for puck distributors who can finish? Yeah he may not be 6’4, but he can still finish, and can still distribute. I also think he would want to show out better than he did in Tour 1. Mika line. PP2, not force fed PP1. Could be worth keeping an eye on. It’s probably not likely… but I don’t think he represents a bad older player type signing. He proved clearly that he can still play. Point per game last year on a non-playoff team and played 18+ minutes per night. Id even give him 2 years honestly. I don’t think that kills you. But it’s probably unlikely as said. Any rumors as to where he’s looking at going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJWantsTheCup Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 I thought they should’ve signed him last year. If they can move Trouba and Chytil for a 3C that’s around 5M they could easily sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 Not this again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 16 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: Not this again Meh. Its unlikely. But it’s worth kicking around slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 3 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said: 21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: Not this again Meh. Its unlikely. But it’s worth kicking around slightly. It really isn't. He's not what they need at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 A polite "no thank you," as you say to the waiter who offers a rich expense desert after what has already been an expensive meal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 (edited) He was almost a point per game player. Across 82 games, he was on pace for 33 goals and 44 assists. The guys who spent the most time on that line this year were Wheeler and Roslovic, who combined had less than half of that while playing for the Rangers. 12 goals and 17 assists for Roslovic and Wheeler in Ranger jerseys in 73 games. Kane had 20 and 27 in 50 games. He is far from best option. But if we need to fill that hole externally on a cap budget, he isn’t the worst option. That’s all. Edited June 8 by RichieNextel305 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJWantsTheCup Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 The more I think about signing Kane the more it makes sense. More than likely Kreider and Zibanejad are not getting traded. And if they don’t it’s even more unlikely that they are getting split up. Who better to make them play better than a veteran on their line that has been there and done that, who’s won it all. More chance of them listening to Kane than a rookie or someone who hasn’t been around as long as them. Plus you put Kane is Panarin’s spot on PP1. Panarin into Mika’s spot. Keep the rest the same. Move Zibanejad to PP2. Probably improves both PP units. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 4 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said: He was almost a point per game player. Across 82 games, he was on pace for 33 goals and 44 assists. The guys who spent the most time on that line this year were Wheeler and Roslovic, who combined had less than half of that while playing for the Rangers. 12 goals and 17 assists for Roslovic and Wheeler in Ranger jerseys in 73 games. Kane had 20 and 27 in 50 games. He is far from best option. But if we need to fill that hole externally on a cap budget, he isn’t the worst option. That’s all. I tell you what. If they trade Panarin I’m ok bringing Kane in for a year or two to help plug the production loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 If you could get Kane on a 2 yr deal maybe you do that as the delineator of this window. That's assuming you're going to "run it back" one more time. It won't work but at the end of the contract nobody will doubt the need to tear it down and rebuild around Laf and maybe Perreault. That would totally chunk their window but if PR and marketing is what you are interested in there's probably no better acquisition than Patrick Kane to make those wheels spin hard. I say "if you could get Patrick Kane on a 2 yr deal" knowing that there's no way you can get Patrick Kane on a 2 yr deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: I tell you what. If they trade Panarin I’m ok bringing Kane in for a year or two to help plug the production loss. My only reasoning is if we don’t deal out any of the core guys here, Kane could be had relatively cheaper (possibly) and shorter term than other options on the market. It would be clear from the start this isn’t a rekindling of their Bromance; we already have one. He would be coming to fix that one. I think that though he would like term to finish up, that he likes to win. And say what you want, we are perceived as an elite team. Pete said it in another thread about that line needing a puck distributor and someone who can gain the zone. That’s where my brain went, because Kane can still do both of those things. Again, not the most ideal target. Not the Number 1 target. But if we are looking to not break the bank, I think there’s a chance he would come here short term on a deal that wouldn’t cripple the cap. And I do think that with his hip now seemingly in working order, you can expect numbers similar to what he put up in Detroit this year, where he was pacing almost 77 points across an 82-game season. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 4 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said: My only reasoning is if we don’t deal out any of the core guys here, Kane could be had relatively cheaper (possibly) and shorter term than other options on the market. It would be clear from the start this isn’t a rekindling of their Bromance; we already have one. He would be coming to fix that one. I think that though he would like term to finish up, that he likes to win. And say what you want, we are perceived as an elite team. Pete said it in another thread about that line needing a puck distributor and someone who can gain the zone. That’s where my brain went, because Kane can still do both of those things. Again, not the most ideal target. Not the Number 1 target. But if we are looking to not break the bank, I think there’s a chance he would come here short term on a deal that wouldn’t cripple the cap. And I do think that with his hip now seemingly in working order, you can expect numbers similar to what he put up in Detroit this year, where he was pacing almost 77 points across an 82-game season. I don’t have anything against Kane. I’d take him. Just not on this team currently constructed. If Panarin were out, I’d bring Kane in. But Kane probably wouldn’t come here if Panarin isn’t here. Or maybe he would and that whole relationship got blown out of proportion by the media. Lafreniere-Zibanejad-Kane Kreider-Trocheck-? Cuylle-Chytil-Kakko Use additional money saved from Panarin to find a fit. Maybe you can land a Marchessault or Bertuzzi to create a real hard line to play against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 1 hour ago, Gravesy said: It really isn't. He's not what they need at all. In some ways that’s true. But a playmaking RW who can still push the puck and produce in the playoffs couldn’t hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valriera Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 This would be buying four additional TP rolls when you already have a mega pack for your explosive diarrhea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 (edited) I don’t get the hate here with it. Why? Because he was average when we got him for next to nothing and he had a debilitating hip injury that he has since had fixed? Because he isn’t 6’5? Because he isn’t 26? No one is saying this should be Option A. Or even B or C. I’d love to get a 6’3 winger with size, speed and goal scoring who is in his 20’s. But is that person available? Can we afford him with raises due to Shesterkin and Lafreniere? Can we afford him if we can’t find a taker for someone like Trouba? Kane may be looking for term. If he wants anything more than 2 years, then I would pass. But if you have your hands tied with the cap and Kane is willing to sign a team friendly deal for a year or 2 for the chance to win, literally, why not? He still produces. He is still a good transporter of the puck. Yeah, this isn’t Patrick Kane circa 2010. If it was, then he would be Option A, B and C. This isn’t even being blinded by being a fan of the guy. If you can get him for a year at a reasonable contract and offer him the chance to win, literally, why not? If other options are out of reach, either because of term and dollars or because you can’t meet a teams demand for a trade, why not? Edited June 8 by RichieNextel305 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 58 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said: I don’t get the hate here with it. Why? Because he was average when we got him for next to nothing and he had a debilitating hip injury that he has since had fixed? Because he isn’t 6’5? Because he isn’t 26? No one is saying this should be Option A. Or even B or C. I’d love to get a 6’3 winger with size, speed and goal scoring who is in his 20’s. But is that person available? Can we afford him with raises due to Shesterkin and Lafreniere? Can we afford him if we can’t find a taker for someone like Trouba? Kane may be looking for term. If he wants anything more than 2 years, then I would pass. But if you have your hands tied with the cap and Kane is willing to sign a team friendly deal for a year or 2 for the chance to win, literally, why not? He still produces. He is still a good transporter of the puck. Yeah, this isn’t Patrick Kane circa 2010. If it was, then he would be Option A, B and C. This isn’t even being blinded by being a fan of the guy. If you can get him for a year at a reasonable contract and offer him the chance to win, literally, why not? If other options are out of reach, either because of term and dollars or because you can’t meet a teams demand for a trade, why not? This sounds like the argument for acquiring him in '22-23. How would things be different this time around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now