Speculation: Jets - General Rumour, Trade, Free Agent and Waiver Speculation (Part XVIII)
- Thread starter Hank Chinaski
- Start date
- Status
CorgisPer60
Barking at the net
From this thread? http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1470169&highlight=tangradi+signing&page=3
I see a lot more "Meh" responses than anything approaching "excited". Stating that "everyone was excited" is a bit of a stretch. Even those that were OK with the signing saw him as a stop-gap measure.
From this thread? http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1470169&highlight=tangradi+signing&page=3
I see a lot more "Meh" responses than anything approaching "excited". Stating that "everyone was excited" is a bit of a stretch. Even those that were OK with the signing saw him as a stop-gap measure.
Majority were happy with the move. I even posted in that thread that I don't get the love for him. ANd people went on to defend him even more. But correct, not everybody, just a lot liked it, for some extremely strange reason. Garrett seemed to like the move. He could probably throw a couple advanced stats together of why it was still a good move, I'm sure. There was a post he once made about how he just had bad luck. Well he's matched his total for last year at almost the same number of games. More bad luck I guess. Career bad luck, 13 points in 121 games. Maybe next year he'll get better luck, since we signed him to two years...
Off topic, but it was hilarious, one or two games into the season, Tangradi made a blind pass between his legs and we scored. Next game he was on the second line and on the power play. lol
puck stoppa
Registered User
I was not happy with the move, but people kept saying his corsi numbers were good, but I watch every game and he sucks.
I can't wait till only one of him, Thor, Peluso, Wright is on this team. I hope it's Thor they keep as a 13th fwrd.
IMO, the majority were "OK" with the move. I think we must weigh "happy" on a different scale when it comes to poster's responses to that signing, as I certainly don't see a whole bunch of outright love.
Examples:
That doesn't look like "love" to me. It looks like the reaction to a depth signing. Certainly, there were a few that were more effusive over the signing, but there were also others that really didn't like it, in addition to all of the "Meh" reactions. Fairly non-committal from my standpoint.
Jesus Christ Horburn
Registered User
- Aug 22, 2008
- 13,942
- 1
Looks like Ryan Callahan is going to be traded soon.
Speculation is that Rangers fans aren't going to like the return (which they've somehow convinced themselves means they're going to acquire Martin St. Louis...)
Speculation is that Rangers fans aren't going to like the return (which they've somehow convinced themselves means they're going to acquire Martin St. Louis...)
Sweech
Oh When the Spurs
Yeah, the insider has dropped some hints.
Possibly a 1 for 1.
Going to an Eastern team.
Player coming back to the Rangers was an Olympian and is returning healthy.
Possibly a 1 for 1.
Going to an Eastern team.
Player coming back to the Rangers was an Olympian and is returning healthy.
IMO, the majority were "OK" with the move. I think we must weigh "happy" on a different scale when it comes to poster's responses to that signing, as I certainly don't see a whole bunch of outright love.
Well no kidding, they weren't going to be "All right, he's going to be our top scorer." But they were fine with it, fine with mediocrity. He is *** garbage and has been garbage his whole career. Why would you want him even considered for our team, nevermind 3rd line, which is what it was at the time.
"Fine with it" != "everyone was so excited about it". That was my main point - it was a generalized mischaracterization of peoples reactions.
Personally, I'm still OK with Tangradi as a 4th line plug / 13th forward. There's a reason these guys get paid what they're paid, and in a cap world you still need them. That said, I'd probably be just as happy with some other 4th line plug, and I get the feeling that Slater returning will push some of these guys to the side anyway.
Fair enough I over exaggerated it.
Some did like it though, and a lot were okay with it.
And many of those same people want him off the team now.
I don't care if he's on the 4th line either, but at the time, he was our third line winger.
I'm still ok with it. I wasn't overly excited when it happened but my thought was low risk that he could develop into a useful bottom 6er and some depth. If you don't try you don't know. You need players of all abilities, roles and salaries to make a team work.
I seem to remember a somewhat lukewarm reception for Frolik when we acquired him but look how fantastic he turned out. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't.
I am far more disappointed with Setoguchi than I will ever be about Tanger.
truck
Registered User
CorgisPer60
Barking at the net
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
So out of the "trade bait" available, who does Chevy make a play for?
http://www.tsn.ca/tradecentre/feature/?id=113259
Me, I wouldn't mind seeing Callahan, Miller, or Gagner throw on a Jets uniform. The question is who do we trade for them? I don't want to see Buff/Jokinen moved but I wouldn't mind Kane being used as bait for a 1-2 + pick swap.
http://www.tsn.ca/tradecentre/feature/?id=113259
Me, I wouldn't mind seeing Callahan, Miller, or Gagner throw on a Jets uniform. The question is who do we trade for them? I don't want to see Buff/Jokinen moved but I wouldn't mind Kane being used as bait for a 1-2 + pick swap.
scelaton
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2012
- 3,724
- 5,943
I have long felt that Gagner could give us much-needed forward depth, and we have plenty of surplus defensemen to trade, which is what the Oilers need.
(To be clear, Buff and Bogo are not 'surplus')
truck
Registered User
None. I sure as heck hope none.
The Jets aren't in a position to sell assets for a pending UFA.
EDIT
Gagner is an odd player IMO and not one that I see helping the Jets in a big way. He is the right age and he can score, but he is a train wreck defensively. I can't see a line he centres winning their battles consistently. I mean I guess it would be possible if they put two really savvy wingers with him, but I see centre as the key to a line and I would rather see a solid two way player in that slot.
I see him as more Jokinen than Little.
Would be wary of him supplanting Little or Scheif in the top 6. Not sure what he could do on the wing.
Last edited:
almostawake
Registered User
Callahan's a UFA-to-be that is looking for 6M+ for 7 years.
Miller's a 33 year old UFA-to-be who is married to a LA based actress.
No point in Cheveldayoff wasting his time talking to teams about those guys. We're certainly not in the market for rentals and there is next to no chance we'd be able to sign either of them long term.
Gagner is signed for two more seasons so maybe they're enquiring, but personally I don't really see where he fits with the Jets. At centre he's just a worse long term option than Little and Schiefele. If he's on the 3rd line, it seems like a waste of cap space. Given his lack of defensive ability he's probably better suited to the wing. But is he enough of an upgrade to make the price worth paying?
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
I agree. Frankly I wouldn't be all that upset seeing Postma / Clitsome go, maybe they will work out there.
I agree, but Gagner would be a good move since he has 2 years left on contract and a not so terrible cap hit at $4.8M
Huffer
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2010
- 16,928
- 7,023
Agreed. I'm not against trading some "older" piece for a younger piece, but the Jets are no where close to trading good pieces or picks for a short term player.
Huffer
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2010
- 16,928
- 7,023
How is moving Kane for a UFA (or Gagner, yuck even with a pick), make any sort of sense whatsoever for the Jets?
scelaton
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2012
- 3,724
- 5,943
He is a bit pricey, but the Jet's depth at F is pathetic, esp RW, the position I would like to see him play for now.
- Status
