Islanders have to match the intensity of the Rangers (this game is NYR's Stanley Cup, after all, since playoffs don't appear in the cards again this year for them). Analytics put Isles up over 60% EG but scoreboard rules at the end of the day. NYR's goalie looks like a keeper (yuck, another one for them?).
Refs shouldn't have called the late penalty but Brassard should know better than to put himself in that position and Isles could, of course, have killed it.
Maybe third time will be a charm next week? Isles have games vs WSH and @Car coming up, so they'll they are at risk of getting into a bit of a slide here and falling closer to the wild card teams rather than home ice.
As a Rangers fan I agree this is our Stanley cup but I think we have the brighter future. The isles don't have the offensive talent to be true contenders. And they've struck out three times trying to keep/get some (Tavares, Stone, Panarin) and likely aren't bad enough to get a gamebreaker in the draft. Rangers on the other hand have the potential for plenty of high end skill with kravstov, Chytil, Kakko, this years draft pick to go with Zibby, Panarin, Deangelo and Fox.
Yea, I was just poking fun since NYR fans used to use the "this is their Stanley Cup" as an excuse everytime a bad NYI team beat an NYR team ahead in the standings.
We'll see about the future. NYR absolutely have a promising rebuild but converting that into a contending team can be tricky. I think they've already given our a poor contract to Trouba. IMO, they should push hard for the playoffs next year. Panarin is so good that you don't want to waste any years from him.
Islanders absolutely need additional scoring (either acquired externally or via an internal breakout from a player) to contend this year. Whether they want to make a move for a rental type or not remains to be seen.
With Trotz locked up long term, the Islanders "floor" appears to be pretty high and that says a lot about their future IMO. We've seen time and time again in the NHL that the best team doesn't always win a cup. Put a program together that can make the playoffs every year and you're bound to go on a run at some point if you're well coached.
Islanders have to match the intensity of the Rangers (this game is NYR's Stanley Cup, after all, since playoffs don't appear in the cards again this year for them). Analytics put Isles up over 60% EG but scoreboard rules at the end of the day. NYR's goalie looks like a keeper (yuck, another one for them?).
Refs shouldn't have called the late penalty but Brassard should know better than to put himself in that position and Isles could, of course, have killed it.
Maybe third time will be a charm next week? Isles have games vs WSH and @Car coming up, so they'll they are at risk of getting into a bit of a slide here and falling closer to the wild card teams rather than home ice.
As a Rangers fan I agree this is our Stanley cup but I think we have the brighter future. The isles don't have the offensive talent to be true contenders. And they've struck out three times trying to keep/get some (Tavares, Stone, Panarin) and likely aren't bad enough to get a gamebreaker in the draft. Rangers on the other hand have the potential for plenty of high end skill with kravstov, Chytil, Kakko, this years draft pick to go with Zibby, Panarin, Deangelo and Fox.
I disagree about this being the Rangers' proverbial Stanley Cup. They're only 6 points out with 2 games in hand, and their next game is against the team they're chasing for that spot. That said, this year's success is not as important as next year and the year after when they can truly compete for a Cup again. In the meantime, Panarin and Zibanejad are good enough to carry the team maybe to a playoff spot. It's just a matter of what they decide to do with Kreider and Tony. I would love for them to find a way to keep both, but I don't see that happening. It's a shame that Staal, Smith, Skjei, and Henrik are eating up so much cap space with so little production in return. Because of those contracts, they may have to lose guys like Tony, Kreider, Fast, Georgiev, Strome.
Lemieux will help, but he can't be the only top six forward with some snarl to him. (As good as CK is, he doesn't play a physical game except in front of the net.)
RE: The Rangers desperately need more forwards with size and grit. Â
Lemieux will help, but he can't be the only top six forward with some snarl to him. (As good as CK is, he doesn't play a physical game except in front of the net.)
I like Nick Ritchie as an option for the third line. What about Julian Gauthier (6'4", 225 lbs) for Kreider?
I think Carolina has the best future in the division. They are already really good and they are young all over the place.
Not worried about Carolina long term. They don’t have the budget or brand name to keep the group together like most franchises can. They already nearly lost Aho.
Would trade George and keep 37 year old declining Hank? Georgie At 23 is better right now.
Don’t get me wrong, as a Leafs fan, I’m excited to welcome Georgie should the trade finally happen.
I know you like asking questions and then, for some reason, ignoring the responses, but this was explained quite plainly to you. If Georgiev is traded, it's not for the purpose of "keeping" Lundqvist.
Would trade George and keep 37 year old declining Hank? Georgie At 23 is better right now.
Don’t get me wrong, as a Leafs fan, I’m excited to welcome Georgie should the trade finally happen.
I know you like asking questions and then, for some reason, ignoring the responses, but this was explained quite plainly to you. If Georgiev is traded, it's not for the purpose of "keeping" Lundqvist.
I heard that answer. I know it was mentioned it was because Rangers believe they have some hotshot goalie coming up. But still, why not keep the hotshot and Georgie? I mean how much more does Hank have left? Keeping hotshot and Hank doesn’t make sense to me. Next year Hank will be 38....how many 38 year old goalies are playing now?
It seems obvious to me teams need two good goalies and not one to really excel. Look at teams like my Leafs and the Habs who struggle when they play the backup. Making the playoffs is tough with so many good teams.....you can’t afford to play a backup 20 times a year who is a cut below very good.
The Rangers NEVER have to worry about playing their backup because their backup is now actually better than the starter. So, if Rangers trade Georgie, then you have the hotshot goalie presumably taking over and I guess you have 38 year old Hank playing 20 or so games as the backup next year.
To me, this makes no sense. You should tell Hank after this season, so long, thanks for the many great years and then roll out the two young guns for how ever long. And if one gets hurt, youre confident in the next man up.
That is how I see it. But if Ranger fans want to keep Hank on the roster for more years, fine by me. I hope the trade is made while people with that thinking are still in power.
That is how I see it. But if Ranger fans want to keep Hank on the roster for more years, fine by me. I hope the trade is made while people with that thinking are still in power.
I don’t mean this to be antagonistic but I am not sure if you really know the Rangers fans thoughts on this.
First releasing or buying out lundqvist has cap implications. Besides that he also has a non-movement clause which makes trading him a bit more complicated. I think most Ranger fans were ready to move on at least a year ago, perhaps more.
Ideally the Rangers would love to have a tandem of Geotgiev and Shetstyerkin.
It would be nice if Hank agreed to a trade, but he seems committed Â
to staying and has all the power regarding that, aside from if the team were to eat the contract. I might rather eat the Staal contract next season, then let Hank expire after next season.
That is how I see it. But if Ranger fans want to keep Hank on the roster for more years, fine by me. I hope the trade is made while people with that thinking are still in power.
I don’t mean this to be antagonistic but I am not sure if you really know the Rangers fans thoughts on this.
First releasing or buying out lundqvist has cap implications. Besides that he also has a non-movement clause which makes trading him a bit more complicated. I think most Ranger fans were ready to move on at least a year ago, perhaps more.
Ideally the Rangers would love to have a tandem of Geotgiev and Shetstyerkin.
I just noticed this reply. Hey, thanks Drew...very informative Post indeed. You are absolutely right, I was not taking into consideration his no trade clause nor the length of his contract. Obviously, this Trumps what I even think Ranger fans think. And yes, you are right again....I can’t speak for Ranger fans nor should I even try. Thanks for showing me the error of my way here, and for doing it in a polite manner. Much appreciated.
I think a playoff series would do wonders for this squad in terms of experience.
On a macro level, the Rangers will be ascending as the Caps/Penguins descend in the next few years. This rebuild has gone perfectly so far.
Quote:
Islanders have to match the intensity of the Rangers (this game is NYR's Stanley Cup, after all, since playoffs don't appear in the cards again this year for them). Analytics put Isles up over 60% EG but scoreboard rules at the end of the day. NYR's goalie looks like a keeper (yuck, another one for them?).
Refs shouldn't have called the late penalty but Brassard should know better than to put himself in that position and Isles could, of course, have killed it.
Maybe third time will be a charm next week? Isles have games vs WSH and @Car coming up, so they'll they are at risk of getting into a bit of a slide here and falling closer to the wild card teams rather than home ice.
As a Rangers fan I agree this is our Stanley cup but I think we have the brighter future. The isles don't have the offensive talent to be true contenders. And they've struck out three times trying to keep/get some (Tavares, Stone, Panarin) and likely aren't bad enough to get a gamebreaker in the draft. Rangers on the other hand have the potential for plenty of high end skill with kravstov, Chytil, Kakko, this years draft pick to go with Zibby, Panarin, Deangelo and Fox.
Yea, I was just poking fun since NYR fans used to use the "this is their Stanley Cup" as an excuse everytime a bad NYI team beat an NYR team ahead in the standings.
We'll see about the future. NYR absolutely have a promising rebuild but converting that into a contending team can be tricky. I think they've already given our a poor contract to Trouba. IMO, they should push hard for the playoffs next year. Panarin is so good that you don't want to waste any years from him.
Islanders absolutely need additional scoring (either acquired externally or via an internal breakout from a player) to contend this year. Whether they want to make a move for a rental type or not remains to be seen.
With Trotz locked up long term, the Islanders "floor" appears to be pretty high and that says a lot about their future IMO. We've seen time and time again in the NHL that the best team doesn't always win a cup. Put a program together that can make the playoffs every year and you're bound to go on a run at some point if you're well coached.
Quote:
Islanders have to match the intensity of the Rangers (this game is NYR's Stanley Cup, after all, since playoffs don't appear in the cards again this year for them). Analytics put Isles up over 60% EG but scoreboard rules at the end of the day. NYR's goalie looks like a keeper (yuck, another one for them?).
Refs shouldn't have called the late penalty but Brassard should know better than to put himself in that position and Isles could, of course, have killed it.
Maybe third time will be a charm next week? Isles have games vs WSH and @Car coming up, so they'll they are at risk of getting into a bit of a slide here and falling closer to the wild card teams rather than home ice.
As a Rangers fan I agree this is our Stanley cup but I think we have the brighter future. The isles don't have the offensive talent to be true contenders. And they've struck out three times trying to keep/get some (Tavares, Stone, Panarin) and likely aren't bad enough to get a gamebreaker in the draft. Rangers on the other hand have the potential for plenty of high end skill with kravstov, Chytil, Kakko, this years draft pick to go with Zibby, Panarin, Deangelo and Fox.
I disagree about this being the Rangers' proverbial Stanley Cup. They're only 6 points out with 2 games in hand, and their next game is against the team they're chasing for that spot. That said, this year's success is not as important as next year and the year after when they can truly compete for a Cup again. In the meantime, Panarin and Zibanejad are good enough to carry the team maybe to a playoff spot. It's just a matter of what they decide to do with Kreider and Tony. I would love for them to find a way to keep both, but I don't see that happening. It's a shame that Staal, Smith, Skjei, and Henrik are eating up so much cap space with so little production in return. Because of those contracts, they may have to lose guys like Tony, Kreider, Fast, Georgiev, Strome.
I like Nick Ritchie as an option for the third line. What about Julian Gauthier (6'4", 225 lbs) for Kreider?
Not worried about Carolina long term. They don’t have the budget or brand name to keep the group together like most franchises can. They already nearly lost Aho.
Don’t get me wrong, as a Leafs fan, I’m excited to welcome Georgie should the trade finally happen.
Don’t get me wrong, as a Leafs fan, I’m excited to welcome Georgie should the trade finally happen.
I know you like asking questions and then, for some reason, ignoring the responses, but this was explained quite plainly to you. If Georgiev is traded, it's not for the purpose of "keeping" Lundqvist.
Quote:
Would trade George and keep 37 year old declining Hank? Georgie At 23 is better right now.
Don’t get me wrong, as a Leafs fan, I’m excited to welcome Georgie should the trade finally happen.
I know you like asking questions and then, for some reason, ignoring the responses, but this was explained quite plainly to you. If Georgiev is traded, it's not for the purpose of "keeping" Lundqvist.
I heard that answer. I know it was mentioned it was because Rangers believe they have some hotshot goalie coming up. But still, why not keep the hotshot and Georgie? I mean how much more does Hank have left? Keeping hotshot and Hank doesn’t make sense to me. Next year Hank will be 38....how many 38 year old goalies are playing now?
It seems obvious to me teams need two good goalies and not one to really excel. Look at teams like my Leafs and the Habs who struggle when they play the backup. Making the playoffs is tough with so many good teams.....you can’t afford to play a backup 20 times a year who is a cut below very good.
The Rangers NEVER have to worry about playing their backup because their backup is now actually better than the starter. So, if Rangers trade Georgie, then you have the hotshot goalie presumably taking over and I guess you have 38 year old Hank playing 20 or so games as the backup next year.
To me, this makes no sense. You should tell Hank after this season, so long, thanks for the many great years and then roll out the two young guns for how ever long. And if one gets hurt, youre confident in the next man up.
That is how I see it. But if Ranger fans want to keep Hank on the roster for more years, fine by me. I hope the trade is made while people with that thinking are still in power.
That is how I see it. But if Ranger fans want to keep Hank on the roster for more years, fine by me. I hope the trade is made while people with that thinking are still in power.
I don’t mean this to be antagonistic but I am not sure if you really know the Rangers fans thoughts on this.
First releasing or buying out lundqvist has cap implications. Besides that he also has a non-movement clause which makes trading him a bit more complicated. I think most Ranger fans were ready to move on at least a year ago, perhaps more.
Ideally the Rangers would love to have a tandem of Geotgiev and Shetstyerkin.
Quote:
That is how I see it. But if Ranger fans want to keep Hank on the roster for more years, fine by me. I hope the trade is made while people with that thinking are still in power.
I don’t mean this to be antagonistic but I am not sure if you really know the Rangers fans thoughts on this.
First releasing or buying out lundqvist has cap implications. Besides that he also has a non-movement clause which makes trading him a bit more complicated. I think most Ranger fans were ready to move on at least a year ago, perhaps more.
Ideally the Rangers would love to have a tandem of Geotgiev and Shetstyerkin.
I just noticed this reply. Hey, thanks Drew...very informative Post indeed. You are absolutely right, I was not taking into consideration his no trade clause nor the length of his contract. Obviously, this Trumps what I even think Ranger fans think. And yes, you are right again....I can’t speak for Ranger fans nor should I even try. Thanks for showing me the error of my way here, and for doing it in a polite manner. Much appreciated.
Likely not. Perhaps if their #1 went down near the deadline?