I saw on the Bruins vs. Rangers thread there were some suggesting trades of possibly Miller, or Hayes, Nash and Skjei or however the fuck you spell his name for Trouba or some frontline defender,
Why? Miller is a catalyst and while he could have ten fucking goals this year already with all the point blank shots he has been stoned on, you have to think they will start to find the back of the net, the guy makes things happen.
Hayes after losing 20 pounds is all over the ice and making the kind of hustle plays that wins you a lot of games. Did you not see the beauty he banked in of the back of Mcintyer last night. That was thee ultimate hustle play. It started at one end and he finished it at he other. And that bank shot was no accident either. Talk about a heady play.
As for Skjei, do you not see the way this kid skates and movers the puck and the pinpoint passes he delivers. Plus he has played some very very solid defense. We've heard about this kid for two years before he started to emerge last year and now you want to trade him???
As for Nash he looks to be zeroing in on that net and has played great defense and especially well on the penalty kill. Everyone is contributing and the chemistry is clicking. Even Zuccarellos name came up. What the fuck are people thinking. Watch these guys play. Truth is if for not two ridiculously hot goal tending nights the Rangers would be 7-0.
They are finding the back of the net more often then not and people want to start trading major assets playing major minutes and just plain getting it done. That's just flat out shortsighted stupid thinking. You know what they say. If it ain't broke don't fix it . So far it ain't broke. Far from it.
A more skilled team would have taken advantage of the giveaways (Girardi, Klein)
Cause all i see on BBI is that he's awful and he needs to get traded.
I agree with the OP that our offense doesn't need to be fixed (by trading for an offensive defenseman). We can score, and in bunches. But we sure could use a dominant defensive defenseman. Not sure who fits that mold, but I wouldn't give up any of our young forward talent unless I landed one of those, and a young one at that.
Girardi has been better, but he's still playing at the level of a 5/6 defenseman.
The Rangers have a surplus of young-ish high potential forwards.
My suggestion was keep an eye on the Trouba situation and if an opportunity presents itself pull the trigger.
Today the Jets, who hold the cards here, have set the bar at a left-handed shot similarly aged and regarded defenseman.
there are like 4 of them in the league who fit that mold and they don't get traded. Gostisbehere, Faulk (righty shot), Ristolainen (righty shot), Ekblad (righty shot and better than Trouba at 20), maybe Klinberg (righty shot)
Anyway, I'd trade someone like Hayes plus a pick for Trouba because when you look at it, the only ways to get a player like him, at 22 is be awful in the draft and pick Noah Hanifin or trade and to me this makes sense.
but it's unlikely unless the Jets price drops they find a match with MTL.
The Rangers have a surplus of young-ish high potential forwards.
My suggestion was keep an eye on the Trouba situation and if an opportunity presents itself pull the trigger.
Today the Jets, who hold the cards here, have set the bar at a left-handed shot similarly aged and regarded defenseman.
there are like 4 of them in the league who fit that mold and they don't get traded. Gostisbehere, Faulk (righty shot), Ristolainen (righty shot), Ekblad (righty shot and better than Trouba at 20), maybe Klinberg (righty shot)
Anyway, I'd trade someone like Hayes plus a pick for Trouba because when you look at it, the only ways to get a player like him, at 22 is be awful in the draft and pick Noah Hanifin or trade and to me this makes sense.
but it's unlikely unless the Jets price drops they find a match with MTL.
Should say unless the price drops it's unlikely they find a match with NYR. I was just thinking about the Habs yound defenseman Mikhail Sergachev who reminds me of Trouba, but he's just 18 still and likely being sent to juniors.
Rangers have a surplus of forwards and a shortage of D BUT out of their surplus their really is nobody you'd want to trade who would have value for a Trumba.
You don't want to trade youth (Pavel).
Rangers have a surplus of forwards and a shortage of D BUT out of their surplus their really is nobody you'd want to trade who would have value for a Trumba.
You don't want to trade youth (Pavel).
I think the idea of breaking up a team's chemistry is probably overrated. They all know trades are part of the game. That said, I'd be wary about fucking with this forward core, which can skate and skill on anyone. Which means if they're going to make a trade for a D, Skjei+ makes sense.
I have no want to trade Skjei. But a few factors: 1) McD and Staal are here long term at LD; 2) Skjei may have some of McDonagh's physical attributes but Skjei is still making some basic mistakes. I have no reason to believe he wont improve on those in time. 3) Rangers depth is along the left side. Org left shooting Ds are: McD, Staal, Skjei, Holden, Summers (our only NHLer in CT), and our top 2 D prospects, Day and Graves. On the right it's a much lesser crop: DG, Klein, Clendo, McIlrath, and then a bunch of garbage guys in the AHL. BSB says our best RD "prospect" is our #18 overall prospect, Mike Paliotta, a guy who wasnt qualified by Columbus last year (I actually think it is Zborovskiy, even though he has big warts).
So Skjei isnt quite expendable, but organizationally it makes sense to move him or Staal in the next year or so if you can get equiv RD value. Also, I think Jon's Miller + Skjei for Trouba proposal is a substantial overpay. Our guys collectively are better right now, collectively have as high a ceiling IMO, and are inarguably cheaper for the time being.
There is no one else who can do that effectively on the current team.
The intimidation factor is still important to have, especially against teams like Boston.
Our coach is making a significant mistake not using McIlrath (IMHO).
Agree Deej - but just having him there will be a good deterrant for extreme cases like Girardi. I doubt teams will take liberties just to have us lose a dman. With our fourth line posing a scoring threat, losing a player there also has risks.
I'd trade Hayes while his value is high. If it is high.
I've followed his career since he was getting press in high school, he wasn't even that effective at BC, where he should have excelled, until he was moved to the first line with Gaudreau. I do agree with the philosophy that big bodied players take longer to develop or adapt to the NHL game, but they're usually dominant in college or juniors when they're playing against lesser competition.
I think Hayes ceiling is lower than Trouba's respective to their positions. and I think their floors are similar, but maybe also an edge to Trouba there since the only question is his offense.
I wouldn't do Hayes + Miller, or Hayes + Skjei or Miller + Skjei, but I'd do Hayes and a draft pick though or Hayes and a prospect in a second.
Hayes is much easier IMO to replace on the Rangers roster than adding a Trouba is.
Only point of disagreement could be on a general assessment of Hayes. I didnt see him in BC. He (and Kreider) might be better as pros than as amateurs. I do know that Hayes as a rookie displayed rare vision and patience. Put up a 60 point pace after the ASB as a rookie. He'll never be a 90 point center because he isnt built to be a PP guy, but he has the potential to be a very good (non-elite) 5v5 first line center.
Funny that 3 straight Chicago #2s are now on our roster. BBI would lose its shit if the Broncos were getting great, cheap use out of 3 consecutive Giants #2s.
Miller could have had a hat trick last night.
Only point of disagreement could be on a general assessment of Hayes. I didnt see him in BC. He (and Kreider) might be better as pros than as amateurs. I do know that Hayes as a rookie displayed rare vision and patience. Put up a 60 point pace after the ASB as a rookie. He'll never be a 90 point center because he isnt built to be a PP guy, but he has the potential to be a very good (non-elite) 5v5 first line center.
Well I don't want to make it seem like I was at Conte Forum every BC game, but I saw Hayes enough (and Kreider) to feel like I knew what their likely future was.
Kreider I immediately felt superstar. Not only was he the fastest player on the ice almost any time he was on the ice he was the biggest player (or close to it) and he had an edge, he used his size so well, crashed the net, had great instincts good in space without the puck and a sniper shot.
Hayes, was big and a good skater especially for his size, but lacked the speed of Kreider and played like he was 5' 10". Definitely didn't use his size and i don't mean just physically, I mean with the puck, in space, etc.
Now I'm definitely not a scout, how well can players pick up their defensive responsibilities, how does their game translate, etc. I'm absolutely not an expert, but that was my sense.
If I had to equate them to NHLers I felt like Kreider could be LeClair or Keith Primeau+, and Hayes would be the Kevin Stevens type who had to play alongside a Primeau or LeClair to maximize his game - more a complementary player than a creator.
Goalie prospects rarely return decent value. My preference is to keep them all and see if any shine. Hank could absolutely be read for a time share in a couple of seasons. Shesty is killing it in the KHL (12-1-2 with a 94.1 SV%, 1.56 GAA, and 5 SOs).
I'm resigned to losing McIlrath but still have hope Clendening plays for Holden.
I don't think Clendening or McIlrath is necessarily an answer to anything - I would just like for them to give him a legitimate shot and see what they have.
The way you build is to let young guys play and grow together. The Rangers strength is depth. THey can run out third and fourth lines like nobody else in the league.
Do they have a Crosby or Kane? No. But they have about ten guys who could probably play on a lot of second lines in this league. This team just wears you down because every combination they run out there can score.
They are hungry and relentless.Obviously it's early, but so far this is the most enjoyable Ranger team to watch in about two decades.
Miller for Vatanen or Trouba would be very beneficial for us.
Ugh
Who is our top Dman on the farm -- Graves?
I was thinking last night that maybe one day a pairing of Skej and Day would be as good as the sound.
[quote] In comment 13193078 Anakim said:
Quote:
.
Ugh
Who is our top Dman on the farm -- Graves?
I was thinking last night that maybe one day a pairing of Skej and Day would be as good as the sound. [/quote
Yeah, I think Graves, who is not so far away from the NHL himself
But, man, what a fuck up not drafting Tarasenko. Every draft guru I recall had us taking Tarasenko.
Tarasenko would have been great but how do the chips fall after that?
Is Tarasenko part of any Nash, St. Louis, or Yandle trade?
I know hindsight is easy. I'll let it play out. If coach thinks Clendening and Holden are better options, I would like to think he and Gorton are doing what they think is best for the Rangers.
most of these kids are 18 years old. So hard to project.
I don't even know the odds, 50% of the 1st round picks making it to a regular shift at the NHL level?
I just looked it up. Outside of the top 10, there is only a 63% chance whoever you draft in the first round plays 100 NHL games. Second round shrinks to 30% and it obviously lessens as the rounds get higher.
Tarasenko went 16th sure he'd go near the top if not the top in a redraft, but hindsight....
I don't know, you guys on here would know that better than me, I just generally don't get worked up about NHL draft busts, especially the later you get in the first round, and the draft in general.
I'd consider Edmonton (for example) having draft issues unless things quickly turn around for them, but generally speaking outside of the top 10 it's a coin flip a lot of the time.
Ugh, unreal
Cause all i see on BBI is that he's awful and he needs to get traded.
He sucks.
Is there a need for a major physical presence on this team?
All I know is that some mattress stain called Pasternak rocked the Warrior last night. Then he proceeded to smash Vesey into the boards post goal.
Granted the Rangers were winning but isn't their lack of beast a concern?
The need for some nasty and protection is still there, but the lineups in todays NHL can't have a goon only option out there. especially on D.
McIlrath is not just goon, he's got skills but he does get himself in trouble by goin full policeman on the ice. He does need to learn to pick his battles better.
But on the overall toughness on the team is a concern. They will face teams that will challenge them, so it's going to come down to players like Kreider and Miller and Vesey (if he has it, I don't know) to do some of that protection.
Otherwise we'll have Glass back.
Kreider, Miller, Klein can all provide a little sandpaper when needed.
There aren't a ton of guys who can truly enforce while playing effective hockey, and I'm not ready to stop rolling 4 lines that can score.
Just have to rely on the refs to blow the whistles and hope the power play can be potent. There's no better deterrent than that.
And the Rangers while maybe they don't have a drop the gloves guy - a lot of teams don't anymore - they have bangers and people who would drop the gloves to protect a teammate if they had to.
Besides, the deterrence theory in hockey has always been pretty suspect.
And I do think there was merit to it and still is to some extent.
While fighting isn't the only angle to it, the theory is you can dish out a reckless hit on player and the refs will give you a penalty and or the league will fine you but you will have to answer for your actions, not your goon, you depending on who you hit. Most of the time the reaction is immediate, on the ice at that time, not planned anymore like it used to be.
But every now and then you get a glimpse of the past with a line fight or dropping of the gloves at the face-off.
that's at least the way it used to be and to some extent it still is even if the scrums have become rugby scrums as much as two guys squaring off.
What's amazing is the # of hockey players now who still have their real teeth - no shit, no exaggeration, that number used to be much lower.
I am not a proponent of senseless fighting in hockey and I think it's becoming more and more rare, but i do support the notion that should it warrant it two players can drop the gloves with no more consequence than a 5 for fighting (or an instigator/3rd man in, etc.).
But like I said in my prior post, I wouldn't worry about having a typical drop the gloves fighter on my team, I'd be more concerned with physicality than fighting. Almost no hockey player will refuse to drop their gloves in the situation warrants it. You just don't want certain players doing it because a) they risk injury and b) having them off the ice hurts you more than others.
I agree with you - it used to just be the case that a lot of good hockey players were also ornery bastards who'd fight. Two of the greatest in the history of the game were Rocket Richard and Gordie Howe, both of them famously pugilistic. Even in the famously vicious '70s, most of the noted tough guys of the era weren't complete goons. Dave Schultz had a 20 goal season once. Guys like Terry O'Reilly, Willi Plett, and Tiger Williams had several 20 and even a few 30 goal seasons. It really wasn't until the '80s that you started seeing guys who never would have sniffed an NHL rink without fighting, the John Kordic/Basil McRae types.