It appears Klein will be scratched in favor of Clendening. Good job, AV. Klein's been struggling the last few games and as a veteran could use a rest. Time to get Clendening some burn!
Josh Jooris also might be a scratch. I'll post more as the info becomes available
Anders Nilsson is in net for the Sabres tonight so HAPPY FEASTING.
I'd trade for him, I like him a lot, but not what I'd trade for Trouba or Jones, for example.
He'd be a top RD on the Rangers.
Of course, i would still move Nash but that's just me.
As for Shattenkirk, I'd sign him no doubt. I dont think he's Yandle's equal offensively but probably more than makes up for it in being a better defender. In any event, if Yandle was a RD or if his opportunity here was better (AV's usage, org weight at LD vs RD, NMC situation), I would have been all over resigning him so there is no need to decide who is better among KY and KS.
Key thing with the Rangers is that they dont just need a RD. They need someone so clearly better than DG that DG is knocked down to the 2nd pair. Realistically, Gorton needs to buyout DG this offseason (hopefully he takes the Biron buyout).
Quote:
On D, Klein back with Skjei. Fans should hope 8 got message
Is the message that he should spend more time sliding on his belly? Because snow angels dont get you benched.
The notion that KK needed a message sent is a little silly. It suggests that his problem is attitude.
As for Shattenkirk, I'd sign him no doubt. I dont think he's Yandle's equal offensively but probably more than makes up for it in being a better defender. In any event, if Yandle was a RD or if his opportunity here was better (AV's usage, org weight at LD vs RD, NMC situation), I would have been all over resigning him so there is no need to decide who is better among KY and KS.
Key thing with the Rangers is that they dont just need a RD. They need someone so clearly better than DG that DG is knocked down to the 2nd pair. Realistically, Gorton needs to buyout DG this offseason (hopefully he takes the Biron buyout).
I wasn't comparing Shattenkirk and Yandle for any other reason than to provide a comp for my thoughts on Shattenkirk. And I like Yandle.
I'm not sure of your last point. Shattenkirk knocks Girardi to the 2nd pair easily. But I hate when coaches are hung up on RH D needs to play RD. Many D prefer opposite hand D. Gonchar was famous for it.
Especially in the offensive zone b/c you get a much better shot fro the opposite side as your shot hand.
Fewer than
I'm not sure of your last point. Shattenkirk knocks Girardi to the 2nd pair easily. But I hate when coaches are hung up on RH D needs to play RD. Many D prefer opposite hand D. Gonchar was famous for it.
My point was that I'd rather give more to get a Shattenkirk type vs. giving less and getting a #4. A #4 knocks KK or Holden out of the lineup but leaves DG at RD1.
I watched pieces this morning - the team is replicating what happened last year in recent games.
I was surprised by the hot start. I thought borderline playoff team, but no real Cup contention barring a top four D acquisition. I'm just concerned the team will throw assets in the wrong direction trying to rectify the wrong problems or thinking this team is much closer than it is (something like last year's Staal trade was infuriating).
I'm getting way ahead of myself given where we are in the standings, but if it looks like the team is only going to be a WC at the deadline, I'd rather trade Nash for assets and then make a run at a guy or two in the off-season.
Trade Nash for a first and young dman at the deadline, buyout Girardi in the off-season, sign Shattenkirk, win four Cups in a row before Lundqvist retires.
Quote:
I'm not sure of your last point. Shattenkirk knocks Girardi to the 2nd pair easily. But I hate when coaches are hung up on RH D needs to play RD. Many D prefer opposite hand D. Gonchar was famous for it.
My point was that I'd rather give more to get a Shattenkirk type vs. giving less and getting a #4. A #4 knocks KK or Holden out of the lineup but leaves DG at RD1.
Oh, yeah, I agree completely. depth moves are fine, but they don't always move the needle on the quality of your team enough to make a difference.
Happy Anniversary pj!!!! - ( New Window )
But that's the thing... far too often in AV's tenure here we've lost games late in regulation and ended up with a big fat zero points out of a game when the goal in the regular season is just to accumulate points, and that means getting bitch points here and there (or better yet 'cheap' 2nd points in skills competitions). Everyone else does it and at the end of the year it doesnt matter how many regulation wins you had.
To be fair, we win some games late in regulation too - Edmonton and Carolina this year are two examples.
Going on 3+ years of AV at this point, we go to overtime FAR FAR less than other teams, and its too large a sample set now to dismiss. Is there something about our game that is more aggressive than what other teams do late in their tied games?
One overtime game in 25 games now is ridiculous and its going to cost us if it doesnt change.
Thanks. I saw a list of all the goalies Montreal has traded since Roy, and it's kind of amazing. Canadiens goalie has to be among the most pressure filled jobs in sports.
Some people don't realize Jose Theodore won Hart and Vezina in the same year. Anyway, they traded Thibault, Theodore, Halak, Huet, Hackett, Budaj, Tokarski and many more all since Roy.
Quote:
.
Fewer than
Not more than three :/
Quote:
. Happy Anniversary pj!!!! - ( New Window )
Thanks. I saw a list of all the goalies Montreal has traded since Roy, and it's kind of amazing. Canadiens goalie has to be among the most pressure filled jobs in sports.
Some people don't realize Jose Theodore won Hart and Vezina in the same year. Anyway, they traded Thibault, Theodore, Halak, Huet, Hackett, Budaj, Tokarski and many more all since Roy.
I liked Theodore. He just didn't have a long prime.
It'd be a sin if you guys don't win a Cup with Price. Same with NYR and Lundqvist, obviously.
Never know who that next goalie will be, so when you have a Hank or Price it makes sense to be aggressive.
I don't mean to be irresponsible and mortgage the future, but nonetheless be aggressive.
I think that's why the Rangers acquired MSL a couple years ago, but IMO that was desperation adding a 38 year old past his prime forward for that price, acquiring someone like a 22 year old Trouba or Seth Jones isn't.
Never know who that next goalie will be, so when you have a Hank or Price it makes sense to be aggressive.
We know though. The King will pass the baton to the Tsar.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
The Rangers had a much longer window that they shortened with bad moves. Elite forwards come available a bit more frequently than many suspect, IMV - hell, Thornton was available that very off-season and wanted to go to the Rangers.
And of course MSL was terrible the following post-season and dragged down every line he was on, including the PP.
I think the Rangers are at the point now where they should be willing to concede 2020-2022 to make a run with Lundqvist but they don't have the non-roster assets they would have had if they didn't trade for MSL/Yandle.
I know that all sounds negative, but I still think they're only a player or two away on D to be a favorite.
Moreover, our forward corp is really good (and we dont get Vesey IMO if we had 1 or 2 more good forward prospects ready). And the real problem is that Girardi, Klein, and just worse. If we had the MSL, Nash, and Yandle picks back, what are the odds that DG is nevertheless our RD1, and Staal is LD2? 80%? Higher?
Those trades could really hurt in a few years, when those players would be expected to be in that ELC/2nd contract sweet spot.
Maybe. Radulov is the goods after spending time in the KHL (and he's obviously much older and not a goalie), just no one IMO is a sure bet to make that jump.
I would have traded Girardi for the rumored ducks package but was decently pleased with his resigning. Didnt think the wheels were falling off that bad. The Staal signing I straight up supported.
Stralman as much a Boyle issue as a Girardi issue. Tough to say Yandle but for Staal when Yandle came much later -- how were they to know (and to be clear, AV preferred Staal anyway). The story you point to is very much the story of the current D corps ills, but IMO it is not a story of the picks we traded away.
Also, we havent had a top 4 dman picked after round one since Toots in 2001 (ignoring Sauer).
I was making two separate points - I explained it poorly.
I was speaking strictly about MSL, but you're discounting the players they dealt with the picks.
Callahan
Dubinsky
Anisimov
etc..?
and the fact those players could have been dealt for picks or younger players instead of the "go for it" moves the Rangers made.
Not criticizing one way or the other, just some different perspective.
Dubi was tough to see leave. AA I liked but it was more "he's a nice middle 6 wing for little $$" situation. I havent seen him this year and I have no idea how he is a near-PPG guy so far. I think the Nash deal still looks really good in hindsight. We needed a frontline player. Nash has 115 goals in NY, and AA and Dubi have 120 since leaving in 2500-3000 more minutes played. Do we get to sign Hayes, who didnt sign in Chicago because of their NHL depth, if we have those 2 guys? Hayes has 41 goals (9 fewer than Dubi) in 2250 career minutes.
Also, I reject the premise that it is even mildly plausible that we were going to trade top 9 productive, prime age vets. It's total fantasy world. Sather was NEVER going in that direction at that time.
So don't re-sign him, but by trading him with picks for MSL didn't help the team long or short term (debatably, but that's my opinion).
Yandle and Nash are different.
Loved the Nash trade from the day it was made and still do. Yandle IMO was a necessity even if the price was steep.
Even the healthy, productive, young Girardi would be a less than ideal fit for the system the Rangers run now. His attributes - shotblocking and toughness - were ideal for the Tortorella years.
BTW, it sucks seeing MDZ having turned into a decent defenseman for Philly. He's not star, but he'd be arguably our second or third best defenseman this year, depending on your opinion of Holden.
Honestly I dont know if it was him or the coaching staffs, but MDZ as a rookie was electric with those long passes. He would be PERFECT in AV's current system. But by year 2 he was already getting away from those, god knows why. Too effective I guess.
Nash for defense
Even the healthy, productive, young Girardi would be a less than ideal fit for the system the Rangers run now. His attributes - shotblocking and toughness - were ideal for the Tortorella years.
BTW, it sucks seeing MDZ having turned into a decent defenseman for Philly. He's not star, but he'd be arguably our second or third best defenseman this year, depending on your opinion of Holden.
I think Lundqvist helped hide flaws in both Girardi/Staal's games, leading to the Rangers overvaluing them. I don't think either would have gotten the contracts they did if they played for the Coyotes their entire careers.
Many here advocated Stralman over Girardi at the time. I don't recall anyone speaking out vociferously over Staal, but I could be wrong.
Trading Callahan was the right move, but I wish they traded him for picks/prospects instead. SJ supposedly offered two firsts.
Rangers picked Buch with the 3rd rounder CBJ gave them in the Nash deal.
2 #1s for Cally means that MSL was worth 4 #1s, kind of.
2 #1s for Cally means that MSL was worth 4 #1s, kind of.
Based on what? MSL was 38 years old.
Callahan was 10 years younger and in his prime. MSL was a better player, but I don't think 38 years old MSL is twice as valuable as 28 year old Callahan. Unless you're basing this on something other than their on-ice performance/future.
Quote:
trading KK and using that money to resign Stralman.
2 #1s for Cally means that MSL was worth 4 #1s, kind of.
Based on what? MSL was 38 years old.
Callahan was 10 years younger and in his prime. MSL was a better player, but I don't think 38 years old MSL is twice as valuable as 28 year old Callahan. Unless you're basing this on something other than their on-ice performance/future.
We gave 2 #1s and Cally for MSL. If Cally at the same moment was worth 2 #1s, then conceivably TB could have netted 4 #1s. I wasnt being entirely serious though.
Quote:
In comment 13245238 Deej said:
Quote:
trading KK and using that money to resign Stralman.
2 #1s for Cally means that MSL was worth 4 #1s, kind of.
Based on what? MSL was 38 years old.
Callahan was 10 years younger and in his prime. MSL was a better player, but I don't think 38 years old MSL is twice as valuable as 28 year old Callahan. Unless you're basing this on something other than their on-ice performance/future.
We gave 2 #1s and Cally for MSL. If Cally at the same moment was worth 2 #1s, then conceivably TB could have netted 4 #1s. I wasnt being entirely serious though.
I see, not sure anyone would have ponied up 4 #1's for 38 year old MSL, but you never know.
It just never happens and somehow we sent all that to Tampa for a 38 year old. And it was because sather was retiring. Just so self centered/selfish.