Confirmed with Link: Rangers acquire Patrick Kane, Cooper Zech for 2023 2nd (Becomes 1st in 2024 or 2025 if NYR Make ECF), 2025 4th, A. Welinski; Condt'l 2025 3rd to AZ

At least it's conditional so that means it's likely protected. Truth be told, we don't have roster space for any kid we would be drafting in the next few seasons to break onto this roster anyway.

I didn't really want Kane but depth is important and he can definitely play top line minutes. It seems like it usually comes down to who has the better bottom six once you get deep and the top sixes cancel each other out.

Kid line has to be pretty high up in that regard. You could do alot worse than Goodrow Motte Vesey for a 4th line and once the cap goes away you could rotate in Cuylle or Othmann or whatever.

I guess the rebuild has officially ended.

WE'RE ALL IN BOYS! WE'RE GOING FOR IT!
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
For those comparing this to "Rangers moves of the past", the difference is we used to mortgage our entire future for acquiring these older players. Now we do it incredibly frugally and don't hit our long-term substantially at all.

It's apples and oranges.
That isn't strictly true. Driver, LaFontaine, Keane, Skrudland, Fleury, Kamensky, Lefebvre, Messier v2, Kasparaitis, de Vries, Holik, etc. were all UFAs.

Lindros was a trade, but that was one of the most justifiable ones of the era.
Kovalev was a trade, but we really gave up very little (i.e., just Mikael Samuelsson, who admittedly was an excellent player)
Bure was a trade, but we gave up very little (biggest asset was our 1st, so maybe this is the best example of mortgaging the future)
Jagr was a trade straight up for Carter (who we got for an injured and declining Dvorak).

I don't think we were mortgaging our future so much as constantly chasing the shiny new (old?) toy. So people who are skeptical of this move...I get it. I am too. If you asked me two weeks ago, I was saying I didn't want Patrick Kane for free.
 
The real question is was Vancouver the third team and are we square with them or is there another deal that needs to be announced? If I missed that please explain.
 
So if we lose in the ECF again, we essentially traded both our first round picks for two rentals just to come up short again. Not happy with this.
Next year's draft is "meh" from all reports. A low first round draft pick in a "meh" draft is absolutely worth a run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rangers in 7
That isn't strictly true. Driver, LaFontaine, Keane, Skrudland, Fleury, Kamensky, Lefebvre, Messier v2, Kasparaitis, de Vries, Holik, etc. were all UFAs.

Lindros was a trade, but that was one of the most justifiable ones of the era.
Kovalev was a trade, but we really gave up very little (i.e., just Mikael Samuelsson, who admittedly was an excellent player)
Bure was a trade, but we gave up nothing.
Jagr was a trade straight up for Carter (who we got for an injured and declining Dvorak).

I don't think we were mortgaging our future so much as constantly chasing the shiny new (old?) toy. So people who are skeptical of this move...I get it. I am too. If you asked me two weeks ago, I was saying I didn't want Patrick Kane for free.
Fair. I guess you can claim the "mortgaging the future" portion on the opportunity cost of investing in those players versus building an organization from the ground up. Good points either way though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrhockey193195
The real question is was Vancouver the third team and are we square with them or is there another deal that needs to be announced? If I missed that please explain.
Arizona is the team retaining the other 25% so the Canucks deal was likely just a regular deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Now hoping that the team assigns Laf to shadow him to learn EVERYTHING (on the ice, only) that made Kane one of the most feared in the league once. Esp since their games have some similarities.
 
Can’t screw em up if we don’t have em’ Danno! :laugh:

1677615313502.png


Drury playing 11-dimensional chess thinking 28 moves ahead
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad