And you still think that they're a borderline playoff team?
I think that would apply if they got Shattenkirk, especially if every other team in the East is going to be as improved and amazing as I've heard on the board.
Speculation: Roster Building Thread DCLXXXV: July 1st Is Coming...
- Thread starter Fugazy
- Start date
- Status
And you still think that they're a borderline playoff team?
I think that would apply if they got Shattenkirk, especially if every other team in the East is going to be as improved and amazing as I've heard on the board.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
I think it's just posturing, Shattenkirks agent has his number, Gorton has his number, now they're using media to try and drive narratives to help their causes.
And the PP has been a severe weakness of ours. Just because we acquired DeAngelo doesnt mean we shouldnt also add Shattenkirk. There is nothing wrong with having two very good RHD.
First PP pair: Skjei-Shattenkirk
2nd PP pair: McDonagh-DeAngelo
Vet and Young DMan on each pair. Mac and Skjei two good passers feeding the puck to them.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Smith is the ideal defensive dman for today's NHL, but I still think Shattenkirk's better. He will push our offense to great heights.
Inferno
Registered User
thats a little misleading no?
He up up 43 in 69 2 years ago (.62PPG)
16 in 25 last year (.64PPG)
with the AHL.
he put up 14 in 39 in the NHL (.37PPG)
Better than Clendening, Staal, and Girardi
Worse than Holden, McD, and Skjei.
Of course the flip side of that is the Rangers were 4th in the NHL in offense at 3.09 G/G while Arizona was 27th at 2.33G/G
You'd expect anyone would put up better points going from a crap offensive team to a good one. Lets also recognize that Arizonas system is not exactly a system conducive to his skill set, where the Rangers most definitely is.
Its weird to be defending a player i really am not a fan of...but i think he has some serious upside...i just question the intelligence of putting someone with his past, back close to the people most influential in making him the way he is.
It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure we heard the Rangers were big on Richards. They put together a huge presentation for him and had teammates call him and all kinds of stuff.
Smaller deals to bridge developmental gaps rather than a large, long contract.
Different teams, different times of the season. Rangers were interested at times when they felt they were going for it. If they've changed direction because they've failed to win the cup then what they did in the past doesn't have as much weight as their current thinking.
Could be but as Inferno pointed out the cap situation can quickly get dodgy
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
Columbus added Panarin in a trade for Saad, Pittsburgh added Reaves, Philly and Jersey got a possible NHL-ready center in the draft. Scary.
One of these things is not like the others haha
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
rangers1314
Registered User
Why? I believe you're in the minority on that, unless the contract ask is outrageous.
So subtract Mac on one of the units.
No reason to not have both Shattenkirk and DeAngelo.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
It depends on the F and D.
That's the same as saying a LHD on the left is better than a RHD. It depends on the quality of the player
Agreed. I'm still for signing Shattenkirk if the price is right, even on a longer term deal.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
Of course, but in general you want more forwards on the PP if possible.
That's fine. Just saying that could be the perfectly reasonable explanation as to why they aren't keen on signing him.
In general though it's quite a big difference. Zuke/Buch >>> McDonagh/Skjei at the right wall.
Maximus
Registered User
We laugh now but if Cigar was still in charge and not Gorton, we would be likely bringing in those two fossils...lol
To be honest I think the whole thing is just 100% dependent on what the Rangers feel they need to accomplish in the next few years. If they're resigned to not being a contender but be a pretty good team while they allow some players to develop, then signing Shattenkirk doesn't make a ton of sense. Signing Smith helps in that situation because you don't have to rely on DeAngelo or Holden or some rookie to hold down the top pairing spot, but he's not signed long term so you you're not worried about tying down all your cap space.
If they think they can develop these players while contending again next season then they'll sign Shattenkirk.
If they think they can develop these players while contending again next season then they'll sign Shattenkirk.
silverfish
got perma'd
Totally fair. It's an interesting take, though. There are lots of objective measures that say Shattenkirk is capable of playing & handling top-pair duties while putting up 40+ points...
But yeah. To each their own.
I'd be quite shocked. I'm expecting closer to a Redden deal.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I definitely expect for him to improve his offensive numbers, but not to Shattenkirk numbers lol
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
How is 4-5 years not long term? That's what I don't understand. Of course the AAV will be lower than Shattenkirk because he's not on his level as a player. If you are determined to give the young kids a chance, why not just let Holden and Staal play in the top-4. Then the kids could fight it out on the bottom-pair and be sheltered if needed. Save the cap room for Tavares or maybe a trade.
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
- Jul 11, 2012
- 13,694
- 1,493
this is more posturing. I wonder how much the Rangers have paid off Brooks and Friedman to have them feed the media with tidbits that say that they don't care for Shattenkirk in order to force him to lower his price
Inferno
Registered User
no of course not...but i could see him put up 30+ points next year especially if he sees steady PP time
- Status
