Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Rangers Sign Kevin Shattenkirk: (4 years x $6.65M)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Revel said:
Honestly, many people would say the same about Steps. He was often considered a #1b at best. Mika has a greater offensive upside, and will be moving into the #1 spot. I suspect he'll do just fine....all while being younger, faster, and at a lower cap hit.

Regardless of whether or not some of the players we got are prospects...that's who we got in those trades. DeAngelo is already NHL ready...and Lias may push for a spot.

Anyway, you're cherry-picking the exchange...claiming we filled the voids left by Brass and Steps with FA signings in unrelated positions ... which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Greater upside? He's been in the league for how many years now? That aside, Hayes is currently our #2 center.
I'd hardly call it ridiculous.
We're a much weaker team today than yesterday but there's still time and no overall game plan if that makes you feel better.
Take the blinders off bro..Lol
 
NYR said:
Idk Edge.
You get rid of Dsteps and Brassard.
Insert Stattenkirk and Smith for 11+?
Huge hole in the middle and no clear #2 D.
Just doesn't make much sense anyway you want to look at it.
I honestly don't get it..
Click to expand...

I definitely think it's still a work in progress, and it's success very much depends on the ability to plug holes.

Brassard for Zibanejad is pretty lateral move, maybe with an edge for Z because of the lower salary and age. Personally, I think Z was never the same after that injury and is perfectly capable of 25 goals and 65 points.

Steps essentially got us two first round talents under the age of 22 - a right handed defenseman, and a potential second line center.

Unless we package either guy with other assets, i don't know if we were going to necessarily get huge upgrade. So we essentially went for slightly more risky, younger, cheaper alternatives, while using the cap space to shore up a defense that was quickly falling apart.

At the moment, we're probably about even with where we were --- just with different holes and more cap space.

With that said, i'd be willing to guess that the rangers feel it will be easier to go and find a forward to fill in a hole, then it will be to find a quality defenseman.

I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they didn't dial Vegas and see if there is any interest in flipping Lindberg back.

They're going to be hunting for a center or two in the coming weeks. it's just a matter of what deal they can find.
 
NYR said:
Greater upside? He's been in the league for how many years now? That aside, Hayes is currently our #2 center.
I'd hardly call it ridiculous.
We're a much weaker team today than yesterday but there's still time and no overall game plan if that makes you feel better.
Take the blinders off bro..Lol
Click to expand...

We are? How so?

We are weaker in one area but we also are much improved in another area. On paper, this is arguably the best defense core we've had in a long time.
 
NYR said:
Greater upside? He's been in the league for how many years now? That aside, Hayes is currently our #2 center.
I'd hardly call it ridiculous.
We're a much weaker team today than yesterday but there's still time and no overall game plan if that makes you feel better.
Take the blinders off bro..Lol
Click to expand...

Much weaker? Nope. Definitely going to be worse for now in 5 on 5 play....but the PP just took a huge boost. Don't underestimate just how much our ineptitude on the man advantage hurt us.

And are you part of the management team? If not you sound ridiculous saying there is no game plan. How the heck would you know what it was in the first place?
 
mschmidt64 said:
3.8 over 7 is worse.

Over 4, he still has three more years to make more money in that same time frame.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's worse for him, better for us. I mean, in the end did he really take a "discount"? He'll probably be resigned by us.
 
broadwayblue said:
Much weaker? Nope. Definitely going to be worse for now in 5 on 5 play....but the PP just took a huge boost. Don't underestimate just how much our ineptitude on the man advantage hurt us.

And are you part of the management team? If not you sound ridiculous saying there is no game plan. How the heck would you know what it was in the first place?
Click to expand...

Weaker on 5 on 5 play?
Because that isn't important or anything but I'm the one that sounds ridiculous lol.

Shattenkirk nor Smith are able to play first pairing minutes.
There's still no definitive #2 dman to be found here!
 
Edge said:
I definitely think it's still a work in progress, and it's success very much depends on the ability to plug holes.

Brassard for Zibanejad is pretty lateral move, maybe with an edge for Z because of the lower salary and age. Personally, I think Z was never the same after that injury and is perfectly capable of 25 goals and 65 points.

Steps essentially got us two first round talents under the age of 22 - a right handed defenseman, and a potential second line center.

Unless we package either guy with other assets, i don't know if we were going to necessarily get huge upgrade. So we essentially went for slightly more risky, younger, cheaper alternatives, while using the cap space to shore up a defense that was quickly falling apart.

At the moment, we're probably about even with where we were --- just with different holes and more cap space.

With that said, i'd be willing to guess that the rangers feel it will be easier to go and find a forward to fill in a hole, then it will be to find a quality defenseman.

I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they didn't dial Vegas and see if there is any interest in flipping Lindberg back.

They're going to be hunting for a center or two in the coming weeks. it's just a matter of what deal they can find.
Click to expand...

Good post..Respect
 
UAGoalieGuy said:
Obviously the world most of us live in, including the Rangers front office.

They wouldn't have given him,that deal if they thought otherwise.
Click to expand...

He thinks Girardi is still good, and probably think he's better defensively than Shattenkirk. There's no point.
 
PMII said:
He thinks Girardi is still good, and probably think he's better defensively than Shattenkirk. There's no point.
Click to expand...

Anyone's better defensively than Shattenkirk.
Or is it that he's mysteriously going to turn into a stalwart just because he's on the NYR?
Watch the games!
 
NYR said:
Anyone's better defensively than Shattenkirk.
Or is it that he's mysteriously going to turn into a stalwart just because he's on the NYR?
Watch the games!
Click to expand...



For the love of god please be sarcasm.

Even if Shattenkirk was "bad" at defense (over his career, he is not by any objective measure) bad would still be an incredible improvement over whatever the hell Girardi's been bringing to the table.
 
gorangers0525 said:
For the love of god please be sarcasm.

Even if Shattenkirk was "bad" at defense (over his career, he is not by any objective measure) bad would still be an incredible improvement over whatever the hell Girardi's been bringing to the table.
Click to expand...

Not sarcasm, this guy is for real, and he has the audacity to tell others to watch the game.
 
Shatty's numbers are great, but I'm going to reserve judgement about his "defense". Even if he's a little shaky in his own zone, I can't imagine a scenario where he's worse than Girardi. I got love for Dan, but I think it might be physically impossible for anybody to be that bad. So worst case scenario for Shatty is a better Girardi + 45 points. It's as win-win as it gets. If he's even mediocre in his own zone, with McDonagh, that's best best top pairing we've had since the damn 90's.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how intentionally uninformed people are, and how reliant they are on other people's opinions to form a thought. People want so badly to be right that they form their own "facts" to continue the delusion, and they want so badly to fit in that they follow group think blindly.

That is "Shattenkirk is bad defensively" in a nutshell. "Well, everyone is saying it, so it must be true." "Oh, he turned the puck over one time, he's bad defensively!!! What's this, objective evidence to the contrary? Phhhh, I have anecdotal evidence, so it must be wrong!"
 
Machinehead said:
How many times have you watched Shattenkirk, Mr. Bowman?
Click to expand...

Apparently more than you Mr Stat Man but if you'd like to make any kind of personal bet, I'll look forward to you shredding your life's work...Yet again ;)
 
PMII said:
It never ceases to amaze me how intentionally uninformed people are, and how reliant they are on other people's opinions to form a thought. People want so badly to be right that they form their own "facts" to continue the delusion, and they want so badly to fit in that they follow group think blindly.

That is "Shattenkirk is bad defensively" in a nutshell. "Well, everyone is saying it, so it must be true." "Oh, he turned the puck over one time, he's bad defensively!!! What's this, objective evidence to the contrary? Phhhh, I have anecdotal evidence, so it must be wrong!"
Click to expand...

Are you serious with this nonsense?

People say it for a reason.

I guess the last two fan bases plus the people that have watched him are all completely wrong in PMII's world just because they have a personal vendetta against you right?
Dude..Stop..
 
NYR said:
Are you serious with this nonsense?

People say it for a reason.

I guess the last two fan bases plus the people that have watched him are all completely wrong in PMII's world just because they have a personal vendetta against you right?
Dude..Stop..
Click to expand...
Zib is better then Brass :)
 
NYR said:
Are you serious with this nonsense?

People say it for a reason.

I guess the last two fan bases plus the people that have watched him are all completely wrong in PMII's world just because they have a personal vendetta against you right?
Dude..Stop..
Click to expand...

You should stop. It's enough already. Saying Shattenkirk is horrible on D makes you look horribly uninformed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom