Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL: Part XIII – Lamie Benn Edition

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
mike14 said:
So if you're offside and then on the bench, is your team off-side until you come back on and tag up?
Click to expand...
No, once he steps off the bench you are back onsides... assuming you have the puck in the neutral zone (e.g. you are already tagged up)
 
TheTakedown said:
Dallas got called like 5 times for this in their game 7...

As "dumb" as the rule seems, you HAVE to get the **** off the ice especially when you're on the long change... Or even better, your bench has two doors. Tell your players to use the neutral zone door during long-change periods... OR be a real hockey player and just hop the **** over the boards
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you read further along in the thread I agreed with the rule after it was posted...
 
Thankfully the AVs losing saved us from a 10,000 word RB dissertation on how all Kevin Shattenkirks old teams turn into Cup Winners
 
  • Like
Reactions: romba
30jbdb.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rongomania
East Coast Bias said:
Washington, St Louis, Colorado. All Shattenkirks old teams. Winning. Cups. You can only win without Kevin. Gorton knows this. The league forced Gorton to sign Kevin. The Hamptons. Instagram announcements. Time to move on.
Click to expand...
Not to be a dick but you can add the Rangers to that list this summer or next:sarcasm: oh and RB did post several links before the signing of Shattenkirk from people around the league who said he’s nothing but a third pairing d-man and power play specialist, which has been dead on accurate
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides
Edge said:
This isn’t directed at you, but can I just go on record as definitively saying that I seriously dislike even the basic premise of that concept.

The second pick is wonderful. But putting that on the side for a moment, the difference between the result we got and result we painfully close to in the last 72 hours is anywhere from 17-22 slots in the draft.

That’s a lot, even with the second pick in the draft.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, it is premature to draw a definitive conclusion until we see where Zuc signs. I couldn't see Dallas resigning him and surrendering two #1s if they won, but there is a chance he resigns now and that would be a larger influx of draft capital to the organization (albeit deferred a year).
 
Why trade Kreider? Who is going to score goals? LOL

It's like when they had Nash AND Gaborik.. but then you get rid of Gaborik and Nash could not be relied upon as the #1 threat.
 
RaXp said:
Why trade Kreider? Who is going to score goals? LOL

It's like when they had Nash AND Gaborik.. but then you get rid of Gaborik and Nash could not be relied upon as the #1 threat.
Click to expand...

To avoid being tied down by a 6-7 million cap hit for 6-7 years on a player soon to be on the wrong side of 30.

We got the best 7 years of Kreider's career. Time to move on and sell while his value is still high.

The Gaborik trade was one of the best decisions this organization has made in the last decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: romba, Leetch3, GodlyRangers and 9 others
Draft Guru said:
The Gaborik trade was one of the best decisions this organization has made in the last decade.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Anyone questioning that trade should have their head examined.

We got 300+ games and ~250 points out of Brassard, then turned him into Zibanejad. That alone is a massive win that is still paying dividends. That trade also got us a 2018 2nd, which we flipped for Smith, who is still on the roster.

We also got Dorsett, who was a useful player for a bit, and Moore, who was also decent and is still in the league. Moore was part of the Yandle trade, which ended up getting us the picks that landed Crowley and Wall. Duclair and others were involved so it's not 1-for-1 by any means.

Not to mention we had plenty of playoff success after Gaborik left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunter Gathers
Draft Guru said:
To avoid being tied down by a 6-7 million cap hit for 6-7 years on a player soon to be on the wrong side of 30.

We got the best 7 years of Kreider's career. Time to move on and sell while his value is still high.

The Gaborik trade was one of the best decisions this organization has made in the last decade.
Click to expand...

Kreider is only 28 and it's true he would command 6-7m over 6-7 years easily. Still, it's still better than giving that deal to Zucc who is already 31. Kreider will easily produce the next 4-5 years. I suppose getting rid of him does guarantee at least another lottery pick or two, so maybe it's better to trade him. :laugh:
 
RaXp said:
Why trade Kreider? Who is going to score goals? LOL

It's like when they had Nash AND Gaborik.. but then you get rid of Gaborik and Nash could not be relied upon as the #1 threat.
Click to expand...

This is short-sighted. This is a rebuilding team. Kreider is not needed, and losing Kreider as a free agent would be awful. He should be traded as soon as possible to a team that thinks he should be re-signed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68
Thordic said:
Seriously. Anyone questioning that trade should have their head examined.

We got 300+ games and ~250 points out of Brassard, then turned him into Zibanejad. That alone is a massive win that is still paying dividends. That trade also got us a 2018 2nd, which we flipped for Smith, who is still on the roster.

We also got Dorsett, who was a useful player for a bit, and Moore, who was also decent and is still in the league. Moore was part of the Yandle trade, which ended up getting us the picks that landed Crowley and Wall. Duclair and others were involved so it's not 1-for-1 by any means.

Not to mention we had plenty of playoff success after Gaborik left.
Click to expand...

Turning into Zibenejad is great, but I think we would have won the Cup if we had both Nash AND Gaborik rather than Gaborik being on the winning team...
 
RaXp said:
Kreider is only 28 and it's true he would command 6-7m over 6-7 years easily. Still, it's still better than giving that deal to Zucc who is already 31. Kreider will easily produce the next 4-5 years. I suppose getting rid of him does guarantee at least another lottery pick or two, so maybe it's better to trade him. :laugh:
Click to expand...

But why are the only two options signing Zuccarello back or Kreider?
 
iamitter said:
I'd rather have Panarin at 10/year + an asset than Kreider at 7/year.
Click to expand...

I see three possible scenarios:

The Rangers trade Kreider and don't sign Panarin.

The Rangers trade Kreider and sign Panarin.

The Rangers keep Kreider and don't sign Panarin.

What I don't see is a scenario in which the Rangers keep Kreider and sign Panarin. I think it's one or the other, or neither. Not both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leonardo87, Cag29, nevesis and 1 other person
Edge said:
I see three possible scenarios:

The Rangers trade Kreider and don't sign Panarin.

The Rangers trade Kreider and sign Panarin.

The Rangers keep Kreider and don't sign Panarin.

What I don't see is a scenario in which the Rangers keep Kreider and sign Panarin. I think it's one or the other, or neither. Not both.
Click to expand...
Which one would you choose?
 
will1066 said:
The Rangers trade Kreider and don't sign Panarin.
Click to expand...

I sign Panarin. We need to be back in the playoffs ASAP. Two bottom 10 teams peaked late and are in the conf finals. Whose to say a young team with a reinvigorated Hank can’t do the same in 2021? An expansion team almost won the cup last year and could have been in the conf finals this year. We need to be in the tournament sooner the later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom