Trxjw
Retired.
I think they can teach him to play center with his playmaking skills.
As long as Chara is on the left-wing, I'm all for it. The amount of synergy there is drool-worthy.
I think they can teach him to play center with his playmaking skills.
If we can grab a maroon or similar for 1-2 million great but not Easy when 15-20 other teams are looking for the same.I don't want a bunch of 19 year olds in our bottom 6 either but overpaying Fast isn't the solution to that.
Could you please expand on the latter? Certainly the draft board is already finalized by now and we obviously know we're taking Laf at 1 (assuming no mega offer comes in at the final hour)?
MonahanWell, with regards to the draft, it's also about the other picks. As of right now, the Rangers will have three more cracks at players in the top 100 picks,
Talks with other teams are ongoing. That's all I can share at this time. I will note that Calgary doesn't have to be just Lindholm for the Rangers.
Sounds like MonahanWell, with regards to the draft, it's also about the other picks. As of right now, the Rangers will have three more cracks at players in the top 100 picks,
Talks with other teams are ongoing. That's all I can share at this time. I will note that Calgary doesn't have to be just Lindholm for the Rangers.
Monahan?Well, with regards to the draft, it's also about the other picks. As of right now, the Rangers will have three more cracks at players in the top 100 picks,
Talks with other teams are ongoing. That's all I can share at this time. I will note that Calgary doesn't have to be just Lindholm for the Rangers.
Are you serious? That’s a ridiculous overpayment for the 8th pick Jesus.Buffalo needs to add talent could this package work Georgiev, Buchnevich and DeAngelo to Buffalo for 1(8) and #2 in 2021. They add a #1 goalie, top 6 winger and top 4 defenseman.
Well, with regards to the draft, it's also about the other picks. As of right now, the Rangers will have three more cracks at players in the top 100 picks,
Talks with other teams are ongoing. That's all I can share at this time. I will note that Calgary doesn't have to be just Lindholm for the Rangers.
Sounds like Monahan
Obviously we don't know what other moves Gorton will make, but as it stands, we already have the top 9 set:
Kreider-Zib-Buch
Panarin-Strome-Kakko
Laf-Chytil-Gauthier
If we re-sign Fast, that means he's either an expensive 4th liner, or we're pushing Gauthier down to the 4 line, and I don't see the point of that. We traded for him to be a goal scorer, and he isn't going to become that on the 4th line.
If we end up trading Buch, that could change the dynamic, but Fast might be a luxury we can't afford.
Please no to Hanifan.Sounds more like Hanafin or depth players to me. Also Georgiev and the potential to swap 1sts.
Those two teams have a lot they could work with.
I think you have to keep an offer to Fast under 2.5. Maybe he deserves more for his work, but this is a guy who despite floating all over the lineup is best suited to third and fourth line duties, special teams. You cant responsibly allocate 3 million for that.Would 3x3 be bad for Fast? Maybe a 4th year ? I just don’t want a bunch of 19/20 year olds playing in our bottom 6
Lindholm and Hanifin could morph into Monhahan and Hanifin.
Stay tuned.
Lindholm and Hanifin could morph into Monhahan and Hanifin.
Stay tuned.
I dont know how to feel about thisLindholm and Hanifin could morph into Monhahan and Hanifin.
Stay tuned.
God that would be amazing assuming the right priceLindholm and Hanifin could morph into Monhahan and Hanifin.
Stay tuned.
I think within the question of whether or not to QO someone, there are the related options of multiyear extensions or trade. I read it that way.
Woah bomb droppedLindholm and Hanifin could morph into Monhahan and Hanifin.
Stay tuned.
From 'not good enough' to 'not good enough, but costs more'.Lindholm and Hanifin could morph into Monhahan and Hanifin.
Stay tuned.
I just dont like Hanifan. Sounds like a slightly better Skjei to me. Which we dont need to go through again.From 'not good enough' to 'not good enough, but costs more'.