GAGLine
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,292
- 21,174
Since when have the Rangers done what they should do from a roster or cap management perspective?
I'm not saying it should be one or the other. I'm saying it will be.
I won't tell you that Edstrom shouldn't be on the roster, but I can tell you the reasons why he might not be. You are free to agree or disagree with those reasons.this is my point. if NYR saw Edström as a contributor, he'd be on the PK. instead, Carrick-Vesey and Brodz are getting shifts.
the tea leaves are there. I would bet that barring injury, Edstrom gets fewer than 15 games by christmas.
can anyone make an argument for why Edstrom will make the lineup besides "he should?"
furthermore, have the management bootlickers yet begun to formulate arguments for why he shouldn't be on the team? straw men, yes, but still.
this is upsetting not just because Edstrom won't play. he's not a gamebreaker, the advantages accrued by his presence in a lineup are subtle and accretive. it's upsetting because it's proof that the team still has no clue what wins hockey games. Edstrom, Jones, these are assets already in organization.
just play the guys who are good at the game the team plays. it's so f***ing simple
1) Edstrom may benefit more from playing big minutes in Hartford rather than minimal minutes in the NHL.
2) Edstrom is waiver exempt. We don't have to worry about losing him if he's sent down.
3) Role. Edstrom has never killed a penalty or taken a faceoff in the NHL. Maybe Edstrom can do those things, but Drury/Lavi may prefer a player who has actually done it.
4) Lindgren is hurt and probably won't be ready for the start of the season. This may result in us starting the season with 13 forwards and 8 dmen, rather than 14 and 7.
Maybe you don't think any of those things matter, but they matter to the people in charge.
Personally, I hope Edstrom makes the team. I think he has earned it to this point. But if he's not on the roster on day 1, it's likely for one or more of the reasons I listed.