Post-Game Talk: Impeached

[SnowblindNYR]

Tbh the Rangers putting an end to that insane man on man D zone experiment they were running earlier, and going super defensive (and super boring), is the biggest reason for the change in the Rangers fortune. They obviously brought in Vaakanainen and Borgen, limited but relatively solid d-men of the right archetype, with the Template in mind (i.e. Lavi's comfort zone). It's no coincidence that the team is much better without Trouba (and Lindgren). Some of us did not want either back in the team, after they'd been out injured, before the playoffs started last season...

The Rangers taking big victory laps for defeating a clearly pooped Senators team that had nothing in the tank is simply funny.

The Rangers can never get credit for anything. Was it the Senators' best effort? No. But we were also on 3 games in 4 nights. But you can't give the team credit for playing well. It's pathetic.

 

[Machinehead]

I'll be the first to say "look, it's one game" but taking it as one game, you have to really be trying hard to not give last night an A+.

We beat them down on the ice, we handled them in the alley, and Igor was perfect. The gamescore didn't have one player in the negative.

 

[mrmovies779]

I'll be the first to say "look, it's one game" but taking it as one game, you have to really be trying hard to not give last night an A+.

We beat them down on the ice, we handled them in the alley, and Igor was perfect. The gamescore didn't have one player in the negative.

We didn't just handle them in the alley...we took all their lunch money and slept with all their wives and girlfriends

 

[Siddi]

The Rangers taking big victory laps for defeating a clearly pooped Senators team that had nothing in the tank is simply funny.

That was the Rangers 3rd game in 4 nights. Your take is asinine. Why dont you go root for the Sens instead.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

I'll be the first to say "look, it's one game" but taking it as one game, you have to really be trying hard to not give last night an A+.

We beat them down on the ice, we handled them in the alley, and Igor was perfect. The gamescore didn't have one player in the negative.

The Sens played like shit, and we took advantage. We needed a game like that in the worst way. I'm not ready to declare the season resuscitated yet, but I could be convinced.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The Sens played like shit, and we took advantage. We needed a game like that in the worst way. I'm not ready to declare the season resuscitated yet, but I could be convinced.

There has literally never been a game that ended 5-0 where the team that lost didn't play like shit. Why is it being used against the team? Maybe the Rangers forced them to play like shit. I just don't get it, why are people bending over backwards to discredit the Rangers? And they've been trending up, it's not like this was on the heels of a long losing streak.

 

[TheWrongWay]

It’s just more horrific asset management from Drury and co.

A) you should be getting more out of a 2nd overall pick , not just in trade value, but in player value. This issue with the Rangers still exists. Even if Borgen is right now providing as much or more to the Rangers than Kakko was this season.


B)you can find a Will Borgen anywhere, anytime, for cheap.

A) He was selected 2nd overall in 2019. It is now 2025. Kakko had 5 full seasons under his belt at the time of trade, averaging 11 goals a season.

B) You can find 11 goal scorers anywhere, any time, for cheap.

I like the Kakko. I hope he has a great career. But here, as an 11-goal-a-season guy, he was a 2OA moving into 'reclamation project / maybe he’ll do better in a new location' territory.

If he flourishes elsewhere, over a real sample size, sure, then you can make a case the NYR mishandled him.

I don’t tend to view trades linearly, as in, “Did we move the better or worse player?” To me, we traded from a position of greater strength to help improve a position of weakness (with a couple of picks tossed in). I think Seattle did the same.

This looks win-win for both teams – a trade thus far where both teams seem to have benefitted by the trade without either team seeming hurt by it.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

A) He was selected 2nd overall in 2019. It is now 2025. Kakko had 5 full seasons under his belt at the time of trade, averaging 11 goals a season.

B) You can find 11 goal scorers anywhere, any time, for cheap.

I like the Kakko. I hope he has a great career. But here, as an 11-goal-a-season guy, he was a 2OA moving into 'reclamation project / maybe he’ll do better in a new location' territory.

If he flourishes elsewhere, over a real sample size, sure, then you can make a case the NYR mishandled him.

I don’t tend to view trades linearly, as in, “Did we move the better or worse player?” To me, we traded from a position of greater strength to help improve a position of weakness (with a couple of picks tossed in). I think Seattle did the same.

This looks win-win for both teams – a trade thus far where both teams seem to have benefitted by the trade without either team seeming hurt by it.

How dare you, the Rangers need to embarrass the team for them to win the trade. Otherwise the miserable "this is the worst franchise in sports history" takes are out.