Confirmed with Link: Marc Staal TRADED.

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
I'd rather see the Rangers go with the three RD they used last year again next year, it works to the point two of them put up outstanding offensive stats.

Instead of trading for a long term center now, let them see what Chytil does at center for another year. If that means signing Strome to a one year deal for support, or getting some stopgap one year center somehow else, I'd prefer that.

All the same I think you are correct the Rangers here will rush to get a long term center, that ends up blocking Chytil or anyone else from taking that spot. The D offensively take a hit and then they end up wondering why they are scoring less as a team while only playing slightly better defensively.

I think they are a year ahead of themselves where they are envisioning Kakko, Lafreniere, possibly Miller too as being able to play a competent NHL two way game.

They might do that. I could see exactly this kind of conversation going on though if they are talking with Calgary. Currently I think the Rangers and Tony are heading towards arbitration. Tony took a hit for them last year but I really don't think it would be wise for the Rangers to give him more than a two year term. Nils Lundkvist is the real deal and Trouba and Fox aren't going anywhere and the Rangers reluctant to moving a right shot D to the left side.

Jacques Martin is coming in to work at improving their D. That's his specialty. That said with Staal gone--his most logical replacement is K'Andre Miller--so it's still going to be a young and somewhat raw defense.

There's a lot of floating parts and floating ideas at the moment and yesterday's move has all the gears turning. We could hash out an endless amount of scenarios.
 
people who think that this trade happened just so that the team could resign their current players and keep the group together completely wrong in my opinion. After the rangers were embarrassed by Carolina, Gorton JD everybody basically said that they knew they had to make changes to the roster. Why would people think that they made this move in order to keep the roster essentially the same. This is about gaining flexibility so they can make some more strategic moves to have this team take the next steps in short order
While you are likely correct, the Rangers using a 3 game sample size, where their opponent had a team further advanced in their build, to determine the moves they need to make seems short sighted to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kovazub94
Apparently at least one Western Conference team has asked. It hasn’t gotten to the point of anything serious. But they at least asked.

Do you know which team? My guess would be SJ. They have too much cap tied up in older players. I can't see them looking to rebuild yet, despite how bad they were this year. Dell is a UFA and Jones has been bad. They could afford Hank at 50% for 1 year. For Hank, it would be an opportunity to win a starting job with a team that went to the conference finals 2 years ago, and he is friends with Karlsson.
 
While you are likely correct, the Rangers using a 3 game sample size, where their opponent had a team further advanced in their build, to determine the moves they need to make seems short sighted to me.
The issues of the team that were highlighted in those three games were pretty visible throughout the entire season. Even when the team was winning I don't think anybody viewed them as legitimate contender or a team that didn't have obvious things that they needed to improve structurally on the roster. I'm simply referencing the comments made by the upper management of the organization. This trade was not done simply so that this team could stay together and get its RFAs signed
 
  • Like
Reactions: zephyr and GAGLine
They might do that. I could see exactly this kind of conversation going on though if they are talking with Calgary. Currently I think the Rangers and Tony are heading towards arbitration. Tony took a hit for them last year but I really don't think it would be wise for the Rangers to give him more than a two year term. Nils Lundkvist is the real deal and Trouba and Fox aren't going anywhere and the Rangers reluctant to moving a right shot D to the left side.

Jacques Martin is coming in to work at improving their D. That's his specialty. That said with Staal gone--his most logical replacement is K'Andre Miller--so it's still going to be a young and somewhat raw defense.

There's a lot of floating parts and floating ideas at the moment and yesterday's move has all the gears turning. We could hash out an endless amount of scenarios.

I don't think ADA going to arbitration is a bad thing. In fact I don't think any of the RFA headed there is a bad thing as long as the Rangers have space for their awards. They would all end up as trade-able assets where the Rangers also have the option to extend them before those on year deal expire and other than Stome who would turn UFA, the others still would have RFA years left even after that one year deal.

Likely most or all would sign before the award process anyway.

I'm in the camp that believes one year for all of them with two caveats. If ADA will take a 4 or longer where the cap hit contains what should be his cheaper RFA years included. If Geo will take about the same rate at two years that one would cost.
 
Do you know which team? My guess would be SJ. They have too much cap tied up in older players. I can't see them looking to rebuild yet, despite how bad they were this year. Dell is a UFA and Jones has been bad. They could afford Hank at 50% for 1 year. For Hank, it would be an opportunity to win a starting job with a team that went to the conference finals 2 years ago, and he is friends with Karlsson.
It has to be colorado based on what friedman said in 31 thoughts recently... That they want to load up for 1 run... 1 year contracts. And the. Pay for guys like makar and landeskog with those expiring contracts.

And a team with...questionable goaltending depth Henrik would be a great fit as a number 2.
 
people who think that this trade happened just so that the team could resign their current players and keep the group together completely wrong in my opinion. After the rangers were embarrassed by Carolina, Gorton JD everybody basically said that they knew they had to make changes to the roster. Why would people think that they made this move in order to keep the roster essentially the same. This is about gaining flexibility so they can make some more strategic moves to have this team take the next steps in short order

The team came up way short of expectations. Carolina isn't exactly the grittiest team but they outworked, outbattled, outhustled us all up and down the ice throughout the series. There always has to be an internal critique---what worked, what didn't and mostly in this case--it was didn't. We lacked depth and the word was we weren't hard enough to play against---or broken down even plainer---the team is too soft. That speaks to more changes.
 
The issues of the team that were highlighted in those three games were pretty visible throughout the entire season. Even when the team was winning I don't think anybody viewed them as legitimate contender or a team that didn't have obvious things that they needed to improve structurally on the roster. I'm simply referencing the comments made by the upper management of the organization. This trade was not done simply so that this team could stay together and get its RFAs signed

Again I agree with you, that is what the Rangers are likely thinking. I disagree that is good well thought out thinking,
 
It has to be colorado based on what friedman said in 31 thoughts recently... That they want to load up for 1 run... 1 year contracts. And the. Pay for guys like makar and landeskog with those expiring contracts.

And a team with...questionable goaltending depth Henrik would be a great fit as a number 2.

Could be, but I'm not sure Sakic will be looking for a 1 year band-aid. Doesn't seem to be his style. And given the state of that team, I think they'll have more/better options to upgrade the position.
 
I don't think ADA going to arbitration is a bad thing. In fact I don't think any of the RFA headed there is a bad thing as long as the Rangers have space for their awards. They would all end up as trade-able assets where the Rangers also have the option to extend them before those on year deal expire and other than Stome who would turn UFA, the others still would have RFA years left even after that one year deal.

Likely most or all would sign before the award process anyway.

I'm in the camp that believes one year for all of them with two caveats. If ADA will take a 4 or longer where the cap hit contains what should be his cheaper RFA years included. If Geo will take about the same rate at two years that one would cost.

Unless it's something low like $4 to $4.5 mil per year with no trade restrictions I would not give DeAngelo a 4 year deal. The Rangers have bigger fish to sign in the next few years and with a flat cap that complicates everything. Mika will need to be re-signed. I would be looking to extend him before his final year. Then we're talking about other long term deals for Igor, Kaapo and Alexis and Alexis I'm pretty sure is likely to be locked up as soon as his ELC expires. There's also potentially Fox. There are only so many players we can do this with and Tony doesn't rate over any of the above in terms of importance.
 
Unless it's something low like $4 to $4.5 mil per year with no trade restrictions I would not give DeAngelo a 4 year deal. The Rangers have bigger fish to sign in the next few years and with a flat cap that complicates everything. Mika will need to be re-signed. I would be looking to extend him before his final year. Then we're talking about other long term deals for Igor, Kaapo and Alexis and Alexis I'm pretty sure is likely to be locked up as soon as his ELC expires. There's also potentially Fox. There are only so many players we can do this with and Tony doesn't rate over any of the above in terms of importance.

ADA can not have any clause active until he would otherwise be a UFA which would be the 4th year.

While I agree ADA is behind quite a few players that should long term overtake his importance, I feel as it would be putting the cart before the horse so to speak to make that move this off-season when it can be delayed. He is very likely a trade-able player on any realistic contract he would get yet he'd have more value on a 1 or 4 year instead of a 2 or 3.
 
people who think that this trade happened just so that the team could resign their current players and keep the group together completely wrong in my opinion. After the rangers were embarrassed by Carolina, Gorton JD everybody basically said that they knew they had to make changes to the roster. Why would people think that they made this move in order to keep the roster essentially the same. This is about gaining flexibility so they can make some more strategic moves to have this team take the next steps in short order

The roster isn't being kept essentially the same, Staal is gone :naughty:

I see what you're saying. I think it's fair to say the changes they are trying to make are the bottom 6 sandpaper guys. With Lemieux missing 2 and looking great in game 3 individually and as a team and Fast missing 2.99, I bet management with a cooler head will say, okay, we were playing short handed, we need to add more to the bottom 6 and round out our ability to play playoff style hockey. I think this is more of an add rather than subtract situation. If Lundqvist is gone still, Staal's cap will be used to add a 4th line player or two to replace speed but not much else PDG and Greg the Leg McKegg. I noticed Haley's name as an UFA on our capfriendly so I could see management paying more than minimum to bring on someone with conventional toughness that can keep up for 2 years $2.25M AAV instead of bargain binning another Haley.

I don't think they're in love with Strome but definitely no have issue keeping him until Chytil, Howden, Andersson, whoever forces their hands. Bridge deal with no significant trade protection clauses. They don't have enough options at C to trade Strome without having to sign a hefty UFA contract to bridge the gap. Fast is a solution at the right price, not the problem. Say 4 years with 2 years NMC and 2 year 8 team no trade at $3Mish. Tony plays with an edge too so it's not like he's a part of the problem either. Smith on D was pretty decent again. He's sandpaper too.

I could see Buchnevich floated out there again from now until the draft if we are comfortable at wing.
 
I don’t think there’s anyway Tony gets more than a year

and that’s if he’s even here to get his next contract from us
 
Carolina had a better more seasoned roster, if the Rangers want to compete with that type of roster it's going to take patience no matter what.
I believe it'll take both as well, patience for the kids to continue to develop in season but also there have to be some supplemental changes to the team and the roster. I think we all know what those changes are
 
ADA can not have any clause active until he would otherwise be a UFA which would be the 4th year.

While I agree ADA is behind quite a few players that should long term overtake his importance, I feel as it would be putting the cart before the horse so to speak to make that move this off-season when it can be delayed. He is very likely a trade-able player on any realistic contract he would get yet he'd have more value on a 1 or 4 year instead of a 2 or 3.

It's hard--you watch and are excited about what some players can do. But things are always in some kind of flux. A DeAngelo to Calgary for Lindholm does make sense--you have a young creative center/wing coming back who can play a 200' game and who's currently on a very good contract and will easily fit into your top 6. It fills a necessary hole with a guy who is a really good player dnd the vacuum you create is temporary because you have another guy to refill the hole next year. We know that DeAngelo is an excellent young player---that he could return a young player as good as Lindholm is a testament to that. Going forward Lindholm would be a core player.
 
Unless i'm reading CapGeek wrong (which is always possible), we had around 14M in cap space to sign DeAngelo, Strome, and Lemmy. DeAngelo at 5, Strome at 5 and Lemmy at 1.5. We aren't holding onto 3 goalies which JD already confirmed so Georgiev was taken out.

With those 3 signed, and Staal not traded, that would put us at 10 forwards and 6 dmen. Add Laf, and we still need at least 2 more players.

There's also the issue of the performance bonuses, which I don't have the time to explain again right now. You can search my post history to read about it.
 
Agreed. It's possible that we see someone like Strome traded for picks, but I'm sure Gorton will have a plan to fill that spot via another deal.



Everyone but the Rangers. I'd love to have Byram, but we have a ton of LD prospects knocking on the door, and as much as I love Georgiev, I'm not confident enough in him being the #1 for the next 10 years.
You are 1000% right. I don't know why I read that as who says no. I would lose my shit if they traded Shesterkin right now.
 
Just for giggles if the sabres offered us eichel for kravtsov DeAngelo lias 22 and chytil.

You'd need that money out to make it happen.

There's usually a reason things happen.

Or it could be just as simple as...gorton thinks staal sucks. Quinn doesn't. Gorton doesn't tell quinn how to coach. So gorton takes Quinn's toy away.

Or it could be that quinn said staal sucks and I feel forced to play him because of what he means to the team...can you get him out of here?

As always there's more than 1 reason you ship a guy out
The Sabre’s would probably want Kakko instead of Kravtsov in a deal for Eichel. May be an overpay but I’d probably still do it.
 
Last edited:
Just to get my own head around these steps. If Strome is not a part of Calgary deal and trades separately for picks then it’s Buch and ADA for Hanifin and Lindholm.

Kreider - Zibanejad - Kakko
Panarin - Lindholm - xx
Lafreniere - Chytil - Gauthier
Lemieux - Howden - xx

Lots of gaps. Step one would would be to switch Kreider over to RW, move Panarin to Zibanejad and promote Lafreniere to top-6

Panarin - Zibanejad - Kreider
Lafreniere - Lindholm - Kakko
xx - Chytil - Gauthier
Lemieux - Howden - xx

Still not optimal. Unless there’s another move to be made without losing a roster player, I don’t see Strome going for picks. More likely if the deal with Calgary to take place it will be either Buch or Strome and the other staying at least for another year. Of course resigning Fast (3 years?) can be an option too to provide some needed stability and flexibility.
Depending on when the next season opens, Kravtsov is looking like he can fill one of those RW slots pretty easily...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad