LaffyTaffyNYR
Registered User
- Feb 25, 2012
- 17,113
- 2,662
Trotz would not get to make those decisions. Gorton would. And his feelings on tis are well knows. If Trotz would have such a disagreement with the picks, then it would never have made sense for him to be hired back in the first place in our world of make believe.
- Zegras and Lundell would be great but we do not know if the Rangers would have been available if they had Trotz because Trotz likely gets them in the playoffs. No playoffs no lottery. Understand yet?
They were a rebuilding team. And that is not the type of team that Trotz would go to. Nor does he belong with, seeing at what his methods are in developing Dobson and co.…which is exactly what the Rangers are about to go with. Again. This is the reality - if they weren’t earnest with a rebuild the team would look different and with Trotz they would have better coaching.
That is exactly what taking away points for drafting Kakko and Lafreniere looks like.I’m not taking points away for Kakko and Lafreniere but I’m not giving any either. A monkey could have made those picks. Anyone who follows the NHL could have made those picks.
Since it happens all the time, go ahead and tell me which one has done better than Gorton.GMs trade up all the time. Pick one. You can plenty examples of success (and probably a similar amount of unsuccessful deals too)
Going forward, sure. But that has not been the debate.There’s no use crying over spilled milk. What happened, happened. What happens next will be interesting, but it’s not a rebuild anymore.
A team that is squarely in playoff contention makes trades to fortify their bottom 2 lines? VERY impressive. Are you insinuating that Lam got the better of Gorton because Gorton did not rent out Palmeri? Really?I mean look at Lam did with the Pageau and Palmieri trades. Solidified them as a playoff contender. I’d say those are winning moves for them given the context of the team. Gorton made major mistakes with the Stepan and McDonagh trades that were also appropriate for the context of that team.
The team has some leverage now, but his injury really hampers that. I don’t disagree that he’s likely to be moved, but the return is the question.I do think if Eichel is 100% wanting out tho it will be this off season he is moved because NMC clause kicks in after next season and then you have to work around that, right now he can be traded anywhere
The team has some leverage now, but his injury really hampers that. I don’t disagree that he’s likely to be moved, but the return is the question.
so I have no idea how true or what not, but hearing from some Kings media they aren't really going after Eichel.
Wouldn't surprise me.
TBH, I don't think the Rangers are either. It was definitely a thing last summer, but that ship has sailed.
Just listened to the Mayors podcast as well. He seemed definitive on it but his co-host didn't agree and stated multiple times "they need to make a splash"so I have no idea how true or what not, but hearing from some Kings media they aren't really going after Eichel.
He's a good to borderline great checking/matchup center.Danault gets the most usage of any of their forwards.
He's a good to borderline great checking/matchup center.
How much are we overpaying for that contribution? $6-7M? for a 3C? or are we putting him with Panarin? Choosing him over Zibs?
The potential contract kills any desire to get Danault. If he was around 4-5M(what he was offered), yeah sure, there'd be a conversation... He's 1 dimensional. That dimension is something we desperately need but not at that price.
I wonder if cooled interest as well as the injury uncertainty, looming NMC and Eichel wanting out could lead to a discount on the return they will seek AND possible cap retention.Wouldn't surprise me.
TBH, I don't think the Rangers are either. It was definitely a thing last summer, but that ship has sailed.
Sure, but we sent a pretty good package to Philly for a 28 year old Lindros who had gone up two helmet sizes in three yearsThe team has some leverage now, but his injury really hampers that. I don’t disagree that he’s likely to be moved, but the return is the question.
I'm with you. Danault is a fine player, very good shutdown center who isn't a slouch offensively. But for what he is likely to command I think it would be prudent to go in another direction.He's a good to borderline great checking/matchup center.
How much are we overpaying for that contribution? $6-7M? for a 3C? or are we putting him with Panarin? Choosing him over Zibs?
The potential contract kills any desire to get Danault. If he was around 4-5M(what he was offered), yeah sure, there'd be a conversation... He's 1 dimensional. That dimension is something we desperately need but not at that price.
Buffalo wants to move Eichel out West, they will not be doing the Rangers any favors by retaining salary or accepting shitty offers after getting fleeced during the deadline.I wonder if cooled interest as well as the injury uncertainty, looming NMC and Eichel wanting out could lead to a discount on the return they will seek AND possible cap retention.
Getting Eichel at a discount asset wise and getting Buffalo to retain a bit of salary (maybe we get him at 8.5 per?) would make me willing to take the plunge.
The Pegulas aren't signing off on any long term cap retentionI wonder if cooled interest as well as the injury uncertainty, looming NMC and Eichel wanting out could lead to a discount on the return they will seek AND possible cap retention.
Getting Eichel at a discount asset wise and getting Buffalo to retain a bit of salary (maybe we get him at 8.5 per?) would make me willing to take the plunge.
What he did arrive here when he first started was destructive. Golf before hockey. Signing just for the sake of getting the players without planning to see if the pieces would fit. Adding players at the deadline who were past being effective. Not understanding the details of Lindros deal. Esposito was bad but he was bad in a different way in the beginning of his tenure.Honestly, I wish Mr. "If I had the Ranger's payroll, I'd win the Stanley Cup every year" would just retire already.
With the depth at center the Kings have, I see them making a move more for Marner or Nylander than Eichel.Just listened to the Mayors podcast as well. He seemed definitive on it but his co-host didn't agree and stated multiple times "they need to make a splash"
Uhhh, I don’t think so.then bednar becomes the best coach available and we should hire him
Buffalo wants to move Eichel out West, they will not be doing the Rangers any favors by retaining salary or accepting shitty offers after getting fleeced during the deadline.
It certainly makes no sense for the Kings to be in on Eichel with what they have coming. I agree with what Mayor was saying in their podcast that if they are going to make a big splash its going to be for a Dman, such as Jones/Werenski.With the depth at center the Kings have, I see them making a move more for Marner or Nylander than Eichel.
Eichel and Seth Jones are going to essentially go for each other in a deal. Maybe some retention on Buffalo's end if CLB throws in a pick. Eichel to Columbus, with or without Jones going the other way is something I wouldn't bet against. They make good trade partners. Wouldn't surprise me to see CLB send Elvis or Korpisalo to Buffalo in the deal. Buffalo needs a goalie too.
It won't be Jones, that makes no sense for Buffalo. Perhaps they make a deal with the rest of their assets but Columbus making a deal for Eichel seems unlikely with the direction their team is headed in. Jones is gone, Werenski is likely gone, who the hell knows what they will do with Laine. Doesn't seem like a team that should be going after an Eichel type.With the depth at center the Kings have, I see them making a move more for Marner or Nylander than Eichel.
Eichel and Seth Jones are going to essentially go for each other in a deal. Maybe some retention on Buffalo's end if CLB throws in a pick. Eichel to Columbus, with or without Jones going the other way is something I wouldn't bet against. They make good trade partners. Wouldn't surprise me to see CLB send Elvis or Korpisalo to Buffalo in the deal. Buffalo needs a goalie too.
And I think if they DO pull the trigger on Eichel, you then go to Zib and lay everything on the table for him. Tell him that we are on the precipice of potential greatness. If he wants to be here, to live in NYC that comes with a price, a give to get. If he doesnt want to bend he is completely within his rights to do so and you tell him we are trading you. Recoup assets for zib (hopefully with an extension for the team getting him) and flip other assets to fill in the holes.I'm sure the Rangers still have interest in Eichel but I would imagine the team certainly isn't going to up their offer from last summer. Still on the table, maybe, but probably likely that the situation in Buffalo has caused teams to pull back into a more defensive position around trade talks.
If the Rangers can get Eichel for whatever they offered last summer or less, while getting assurances from their own doctors that everything can be dealt with, I'd have a hard time seeing them walking away from that. I'm not crazy about the idea but getting an elite center locked up through his prime takes a pretty massive question mark off of Drury's board. He's instantly the piece you build around down the middle without question. So that makes the Zibanejad decision an easy one and, depending on who goes out in the deal, could answer a number of other questions about what to do with certain players. If Buch goes in an Eichel deal, then that's one less thing to figure out heading into the summer.
Such a great tweet and so true about NHL GMs who are afraid to make moves: