rangers1314
Registered User
Thanks, I see…don’t love that retentionBrooks at 430 Am with an article in the Post.
Thanks, I see…don’t love that retentionBrooks at 430 Am with an article in the Post.
Or RFAs. Or younger players under contract.Also, I heard multiple times that the Rangers want to get YOUNGER this offseason. To me, that means they may be looking at younger UFA’s…
Now all we need to do is trade Lindy & we're really in business.If you told me all it costs after the playoffs was keeping 2.5 million per year over two years to dump both Goodrow and Trouba, you run, you run fast and don’t look back.
Or RFAs. Or younger players under contract.
Sharangovich would be a good target IMO. I wonder if we might trade for Marino if we move Trouba. He makes 4.4 mil for 3 more years, which would eat up the majority of our cap savings from the projected Trouba deal, but he's only 27 and a solid player.
Rangers declined to qualify him. It was a blurb in a recent Post article.Did we not qualify Matthew Robertson? I’ve read a few posts here sounding like moratoriums on his NYR career but haven’t seen anything official
Rangers eyeing Montour or Ekblad perhaps?
MATT ROYRangers eyeing Montour or Ekblad perhaps?
I know Mollie Walker had an article that said the Rangers aren't expected to give the QO to either Trivigno or Robertson, the latter being mildly surprising to me. I trust what she said, though. The deadline technically isn't until Monday, but it sounds like the decision has been made.Only situation where I’d be fine with retaining is if we don’t take a big salary back. I’d do Trouba straight up for Copp but for 2.5 retained I’d want an actual valuable prospect.
Did we not qualify Matthew Robertson? I’ve read a few posts here sounding like moratoriums on his NYR career but haven’t seen anything official
MATT ROY
Qualifying offers are due Monday. Mollie has speculated/been told he won't get one but it's not official yetRangers declined to qualify him. It was a blurb in a recent Post article.
I don't think we're hunting for big game. Not that big, anyway.Rangers eyeing Montour or Ekblad perhaps?
I liked Robertson when I saw him in his first Traverse City tournament....however, he hasn't really progressed as much as I thought he would. The injury he had really didn't help his progress either. At this point in time, I'm not surprised at their (supposed) decision.I know Mollie Walker had an article that said the Rangers aren't expected to give the QO to either Trivigno or Robertson, the latter being mildly surprising to me. I trust what she said, though. The deadline technically isn't until Monday, but it sounds like the decision has been made.
Yeah my thinking with Robertson was that given he's still a young 23, they'd want to give him another year to try to show he has a future. His play the past three seasons hasn't really warranted it, other than a few stretches. I guess though if they've decided he doesn't have it, then no sense keeping him around. I also had to remind myself he's not a Drury pick, so there's no real attachment.I liked Robertson when I saw him in his first Traverse City tournament....however, he hasn't really progressed as much as I thought he would. The injury he had really didn't help his progress either. At this point in time, I'm not surprised at their (supposed) decision.
Yeah my thinking with Robertson was that given he's still a young 23, they'd want to give him another year to try to show he has a future. His play the past three seasons hasn't really warranted it, other than a few stretches. I guess though if they've decided he doesn't have it, then no sense keeping him around. I also had to remind myself he's not a Drury pick, so there's no real attachment.
Interested to see what kind of return Trouba brings with 2.5M retention. Will put to the test the idea that he had any sort of positive value. Also I’m kinda disappointed to see that Kane and Stamkos are the names popping up, neither is an answer to any of the Rangers problems at forward. Like I said I wouldn’t mind Kane but if the top 6 is the same as last year except Kane included the same outcome will result.
Kane is also deficient when it comes to doing anything the rangers need to improve on, which is board battles, puck retrievals, forechecking. It’s just going to be more rush-based, east-west offensive attack. If he’s going to play with Kreider and Zibanejad it’s the same issues as they have had for years. Upgrading the 3rd line and 3rd pair D isn’t really enough to overcome that.I think Kane is being sold short. He’s the best natural RW we’d be going into the season with since Buch left. Older players can still have an impact and he showed he wasn’t cooked last year. Marty St. Louis raised the game of everyone on the team at 39 once upon a time. They’d still have ample space to upgrade the 3rd line and defense.
Qualifying offers are due Monday. Mollie has speculated/been told he won't get one but it's not official yet
Stammer hasnt played center regularly in years. He is a winger at this point fyi. Stammer and zib on the same line would be putting two of the same player together with no natural playmaker on the line. Stammer is a better skating version of zibFor Kane, honestly it comes down to cost and term. 1 or 2 years around $3-4M AAV is probably the best the Rangers are going to get for that RW spot with Kreider and Zib. Unless Stamkos is reasonable and they shift Zib to RW.