Brooks hates Shatty
Member Since
Jul 17, 2019
Favourite Team
New York Rangers
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 20, 2019 at 4:41
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 19, 2019 at 7:12
Thread: Smith
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Josh</b></div><div>There is no need for callups, unless there is an injury. Capwise, they are fine. And thats with no movement.
If there is a move, its to free up additional capspace for ADA and Lemieux - and theyll still be flush to the cap.

Brendan Smith is not the guy you want in Hartford, as the Rangers have made it clear that they want to change the culture in Hartford. He broke his hand punching a teammate last time, so I'm not sure how he'd be good for the kids.

As far as Smith with the Rangers/Quinn - while I agree with you, I am being realistic. Smith can play either side on D, and played the wing last season. So, you wont need your callup you are worried about. And I am also not a fan of this guy getting icetime over anyone, let alone a developing prospect. And that's for NY and Hartford. But Quinn has the hots for him, so I think we are stuck watching him for another 60 games this season.

I'd like to see Rykov, Hajek, Lindgren taking the #6 and #7 d spots... but, again, Quinn hasnt been too fond of the young guys not named Pionk or Howden.</div></div>

Brendan smith fought Letteri in AV’s last year when he was out of shape and banished to Hartford. He came into camp in great shape last season according to everyone, he signed the big deal, got married and got too comfortable. He is far from comfortable and with credible coaches in Hartford this season I am not worried about him being there. You said it yourself Quinn has the hots for him and sometimes you have to take the toys away from a kid if you don’t want them to play with them. Gorton has to make the right move here or Smith will play over a kid on defense or even worse over a Kravstov or Kakko when Quinn is trying to send a message.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 17, 2019 at 7:00
Thread: Laine
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 17, 2019 at 6:40
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 15, 2019 at 10:41
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 9, 2019 at 10:57
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Spanky227</b></div><div>No, I have him there for a reason. When Vlad was playing with Stamkos and Kucherov he was in the midst of one of his best seasons. He's been a tad unlucky with a PDO under 99, but besides that I really do think he is one of the best plug-n-play players we have (as he can play any role requested). With Panarin and Buchnevich, we have three highly skilled russians on one line-- yes this is more of a 1b line than a 1a line (at least on paper). The purpose of this is that there is a reason Namestnikov hasn't been traded yet, his value is so low that the rangers want to get a better return on their investment into him. What better way to boost his value than to put him in a situation where he can succeed. As we saw with Kevin Hayes, Duchene, etc, teams will overpay for a player that they think will help them win a cup. Do I think a team will pony up a 1st rounder-- he11 no, but a 2nd rounder isn't out of reach if Namestnikov has a solid season. Just look at what Ottawa got for Dzingel who produced on an expanded role in Ottawa after they tanked the last two years, back to back 56 point seasons (they got two 2nds and Duclair). Maybe swap lines one and two and it's more realistic. I think Kreider, Namestnikov, Strome and Fast are gone at the deadline anyway.

Post deadline lines:


For Kreider, I can see a return of various picks (meaning different rounds, not multiple) and Puljujarvi or Tolvanen or another decent prospect that can fill a 3rd line role right now with potential for more.
For Strome/Namestnikov/Fast I can see a return of picks varying from 2nd round through 4th round depending on the season they are having.</div></div>

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but Quinn has stated he sees Zibanejad with Panarin on top line, check the end of this article

<a href="https://amp.lohud.com/amp/1624681001" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">https://amp.lohud.com/amp/1624681001</a>

I understand your desire to improve Vlad’s trade value but I don’t think he will be here come opening night and playing with Buch and Panarin, for as good as they are is not the same as playing with Stamkos and Kucherov, especially with Vlad playing at center with more defensive responsibilities.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 8, 2019 at 5:42
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 8, 2019 at 5:16
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 8, 2019 at 5:12
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 3, 2019 at 2:21
Thread: Try1
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mytduxfan</b></div><div>What leverage?!?!?!?!? Just because you're not squeezed for cap doesn't give you leverage, it just means that teams have less against you. Are you suggesting that no one would take on Shattenkirk because the NYRs were over the cap? I would say they didn't want him (without a significant incentive that Gorton clearly wasn't willing to pay) because he's not a good top 4 D and overpaid. Getting under the cap wouldn't/doesn't change that.

Gorton is still trading from a position of weakness. It's simple supply and demand. Gorton has a steady supply of weak, overpaid players and there is no demand for them. That is the definition of a position of weakness.

What's your point? Yes, Vesey, a player that put up more goals and points than Namestnikov this past season, getting largely comparable minutes, and on a fraction of a contract that Namestnikov makes, 2.275M vs. 4M, returned a 3rd round pick. What does that have to do with Namestnikov? My argument isn't even about ability. Namestnikov is clearly an NHL level player, but he has a stupid contract. In the days when the young superstar kids are making 8-10M per year, you've got to save in every area you can. Spending 4M on a bottom 6 winger is just bad resource management. Admittedly, Namestnikov only has 1yr left on his current deal, but he's a UFA after that. Why give up assets on a player who you know you don't want to keep at 4M per, but who has the option to just walk if you don't pay him what he wants. Even if it's just a 5th or 6th round pick, it's still a pick that you have effectively thrown away in a very, very high risk deal that more than likely you won't come out on top of. I don't see why any team would do that, maybe some idiot GM like Paul Fenton (although he's not around anymore). Unless you are expecting teams to pay assets because they think Namestnikov will make their team better? If so, name that team. Which team is sitting there thinking a 15g - 15 a per year 3rd line winger getting paid $4M is going to suddenly take them to that next level. It won't and so it's just money wasted on a player they don't really need and a spot taken up that could be used by young kid who needs NHL experience.

Again, you're going to have to explain to me why NYR being under the cap makes Shatty a more attractive player? Are you telling me that loads of teams were interested in Shatty, but squeezed Gorton the cost to dump him or wouldn't provide a reasonable return? Surely if Gorton ultimately bought-out Shatty, it means there was no return to speak of i.e. no one wanted him and NYR would have to pay to dump Shatty. I mean, if, for example, ANA said they'd pay a 7th round pick for Shatty, are you suggesting that Gorton was like "no! I want a 4th or I am buying him out". If so, that's stupid! The only thing that makes sense to me is that teams were saying "yeah, we'll take Shatty, but he'll have to come with a 1st round pick/quality prospect" and Gorton didn't want to pay. Regardless of what that biased article asserts, even at 50%, I think teams were asking for Shatty to come with an incentive and I don't think Gorton thought it was worth it. In fact, if the ask was like a NYR 2nd round pick + Shatty @ 50%, buying out Shatty makes more sense to me as you get the cap space and don't lose the assets. However, to you it is clearly a stupid move because Gorton could have bought out Smith or Staal and traded Namestnikov and Strome for 4th and 5th round picks. What you fail to understand is that, clearly, if that was an option, Gorton would have taken it. So I think we can all see, apart from you clearly, that it wasn't an option.

Care to provide a source or just another baseless assertion? I think Shatty will get signed to a short-term 1-2.5M contract. Not exactly good D money for a veteran player. I think Shatty is an over-hyped 3rd pairing PP specialist and has been his whole career. Since his injury, however, yeah, I think he's been a bad player. You can disagree with me on that. That's fine. However, clearly, he wasn't good enough to warrant keeping around, despite the cap crunch. I mean, it's funny how you say "he's good and Staal is bad", but the difference between buying out Staal and Shatty is like 1.5M this year. 1.5M is not a huge amount of money when one play is terrible and one player, according to you, "good". I'd rather trade Lemieux, buyout Staal and keep Shatty, given that he's "good". However, clearly, your very experienced NHL-level GM and coaching staff didn't agree with you.

You say that Shatty was bought out because it opens up the most cap space this season, but you also say that Namestnikov could be moved for a 4th or 5th. Why not buyout Staal or Smith and move Namestnikov then? Oh wait.... maybe it's because you are wrong and Gorton can't move Namestnikov for picks. In fact, may be Namestnikov will cost picks to move, just like Shattenkirk would have. Therefore, instead of being able to buyout Staal or Smith, buying out Shatty presents the best way of opening up the most cap space. You see, your story doesn't make sense. You like in pure delusion that "XX could be moved" or "Shatty is good, but we moved this really good player because of cap space". It just doesn't make any sense. I am not anti-NYR, I am a realist. You are living in a fantasy land and not looking at the facts. If XX could be moved so easily, he would have. If XX is a worst player and should have been bought out, he would have. You're not some genius fan that knows more than the GM and head coach actually living the situation. Seriously, wake up, get your head out of the sand, read some articles by people who aren't staunch NYR fans and open your mind to the idea that, maybe... just maybe, those guys who you think are "Shatty haters" can just see his flaws and are calling him out on them.

Not the move you would have made in fantasy land... eh? Maybe the move you would have made wasn't at all realistic or available. Just because you think Gorton had all these teams lining up to acquiring Shatty or Namestnikov, doesn't make it true.</div></div>

The Rangers are under the cap, so yes they have leverage, they don't have to trade anyone if they don't want to. They can get through the rest of training camp over the cap (8.1 million overage since they are allowed to be 10% over for the summer) and demote Smith, Beleskey and McKegg after signing Lemieux and DeAngelo to get under the cap at the start of the season. If they want to make a trade they can, but if they remained over the cap Gorton would be operating from a position of weakness. Every other GM in the league would know that Jeff Gorton has to get below the cap or the last contract signed will be invalidated. They could offer pennies on the dollar, as I stated in previous posts. The Rangers would be realistically trading for cap space, more than the return.

Kreider is a weak and overpaid player? 28 goals and 24 assists for 52 points, finished 56th in goal scoring for forwards, same amount of goals as Zach Parise...so let's compare those contracts, Parise makes 7.45 and Kreider makes 4.625, but yeah Kreider's overpaid.
Strome is a weak and overpaid player? 19 goals and 16 assists for 35 points, finished 130th in goal scoring, right below Jordan Eberle who signed for 5 years at 5.5, Strome is payed 3.1 million, but yeah he's overpaid.
Namestnikov is a weak and overpaid player? 11 goals and 20 assists for 31 points, 3 points behind guys Kovalchuk and 2 points behind Jeff Carter in points score... but yeah Vlad is overpaid hahaha.
Just stop with, you don't know what you are talking about and are embarrassing yourself. The best part is all 3 of these guys are two way players, who can create offense but are solid defensively, can kill penalties, but again something you don't know cause you don't watch this team but pretend to be an expert who watched all 82 games.

Why give up assets for Namestnikov, because he is a jack of all trades good teams could use. A guy who can put up points when playing with top players, see his years with Stamkos and Kuch, which JT Miller was not able to replicate. Namestnikov on a good team is a 3rd liner, someone who can kill penalties, contribute offensively and play smart shutdown hockey against your opposing teams top players, but can also be a top 6 player if needed, definitely in a long playoff run when players get hurt. You also seem to forget there is salary retention. The Rangers can retain 1-2 million on on his deal, making him an attractive player who a team who maybe isn't sure about their 2nd or 3rd line. Teams throw away picks every year, Gorton traded Cody McLeod for a 7th round pick... Cody McLeod, worst metrics in the league, human punching bag, yet the Preds wanted him and didn't give up future considerations. If he can be traded, anyone can be traded, anyone.

You keep talking about Namestnikov being traded at full salary, well now that the Rangers are under the cap they can retain a million or 2 million. So if Vesey, who is nothing more than a one dimensional 3rd liner can get back a 3rd from the Sabres, you are really going to say Namestnikov can't get back a 3rd or 4th if traded at 50% retained salary??? Of course you will because you know everything and are an NHL GM!

In my last post I made it clear the Rangers opted to get cap space with the buyout of Shatty as opposed to whatever returns were available. We've discussed before that for Shatty to be traded WITHOUT salary retention it would probably takes the Rangers sending Shatty with picks and prospects for nothing or little to nothing, this makes no sense for a rebuilding team. We will never know what the returns were offered for Shatty, but at the end of the day the Rangers wanted cap space this year, they have 16 million in cap space next season in expiring contracts and 18 million in cap space the following year after that. Clearly they valued the space this year and aren't as worried about space in the future with all the space that will be freed up. This is not rocket science. Going back to an earlier part of this post you can't seem to grasp from previous posts, the Rangers were over the cap... no one is going to do them favors and until they bought out someone there were not in a position to retain salary in a trade. They were operating from a position of weakness. I also enjoy how you state we all see this except for me, I see tons of people here joining your fruitless debate, which is all opinion... my opinion vs your opinion.

Baseless assertion that teams will be lining up for Shatty's services? Please name me some better right handed d-men on the free agent market who can run a power play currently? You are right he will probably sign a short-term deal, it just depends if he wants to get paid or go to a contender. He can go to Tampa or Toronto for little money for a chance to win while improving his numbers but if he wants term Flyers, Devils, Isles, Kings all have room to take him on big deals. You didn't seem to go into detail when I cited the statistics that Shatty had above average offensive metrics and average defensive ones, but yeah that is just from someone who is biased and actually watches the Rangers unlike you. Your arguments are so flawed and just really sad, no one is arguing that Shatty is Erik Karlsson, but he is far from bad as you stated, you always skip over the fact he played one year with a bad knee under a terrible coaching staff and then finally start to return to form in the 2nd half of the year.

So feel free to come back at me, cherry pick the parts you want to debate and continue your anti-Ranger agenda. I've wasted enough time debating with you.