Some players want every penny and are greedy, I don’t get that impression from Fast at all. He loves being a ranger, i think he’s the epitome of doing the discount thing.
- Slimtj100

Players arent greedy, They are the ones who fill the seats. Their careers arent long and deserve to get as much as they can. Its the GMs who are dumb for handing out such ludicrous contracts.

Some players want every penny and are greedy, I don’t get that impression from Fast at all. He loves being a ranger, i think he’s the epitome of doing the discount thing.
- Slimtj100

I don't think that'd be a greedy ask for him. He'll probably use Tanev and Cizikas as comparable contracts. Not saying it'll happen, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if he got $4M on the open market.

Kessel and Skinner combined for 5 even strength goals this year. 5! 5 EVEN STRENGTH goals! That’s right, 5 in 129 combined games Skinner had none btw
- Slimtj100

I'm convinced that Kessel accepted that trade to ARI simply so he could go play out the rest of his contract in a place where he won't be held all that accountable

Welp, back from Florida and working from home all week. I had a few days before they shut everything down there.

I think both of us have been pretty in agreement someone is gonna make the mistake in overpaying Fast. I know this is an argument that I think we have to agree most people on this board will agree to disagree with me on, but smart orgs just don't allocate that kind of money to players like that.

I think people forget that signing Fast doesn't occur in a vacuum. Not paying Fast 3 million is 3 milion that can be allocated to ADA and Strome, or even in the following offseason with Zib's contract is up. As popular a guy as Quickie is, I'd be pretty peeved if we couldn't lock our core because we decided to give a hefty raise to a bottom 6 player. Even more maddening when there could be internal options to mostly replace him that would be far cheaper.

Fast is a signing you make if you thought the team was really close to winning, we aren't. Now is the time to see if guys like Di Guissepe, moving Howden to wing, Gaut, or even a longshot like Elmer or Barron can fill the role. Even if all those above options fail, theres countless guys every year on UFA that you can sign and do a decent job for a fraction of what Fast would cost.
- 2sticks1puck

This is where we disagree.

Do I think Fast is an elite sniper, world class passer that is solidified in the top 6? Not at all. But he is the epitome of a role player who can play in the top 6. Everyone points to the chemistry b/t Panarin and Strome as the reason for both players having career years, but I'm of the belief it's the little things Fast does that supports that fact. He is currently playing in the top 6, so he should not be classified as a bottom 6 player. That then raises the question, would you be comfortable spending $3M on a top 6 player? I think we'd unanimously agree the answer is yes. That money saved by having a player like Fast in the top 6 is capital spent elsewhere. It's a matter of perspective I suppose. One day, one of the prospects might slot in where Fast does, and when it does, then we have a "top 6 guy" playing in the bottom 6. To me, that's depth.

The second point of disagreement: Can players like Di G, Gaut, Howden, prospect A, B or C fill Fast shoes? I'm not willing to say yes until one of them has consistently proven that they can. Fast spent YEARS playing a support role on 3 and 4 line. Those other guys will likely have to do the same.

And finally, you're wrong. I'm right. If you don't like it, suck on deez nuts

This is where we disagree.

Do I think Fast is an elite sniper, world class passer that is solidified in the top 6? Not at all. But he is the epitome of a role player who can play in the top 6. Everyone points to the chemistry b/t Panarin and Strome as the reason for both players having career years, but I'm of the belief it's the little things Fast does that supports that fact. He is currently playing in the top 6, so he should not be classified as a bottom 6 player. That then raises the question, would you be comfortable spending $3M on a top 6 player? I think we'd unanimously agree the answer is yes. That money saved by having a player like Fast in the top 6 is capital spent elsewhere. It's a matter of perspective I suppose. One day, one of the prospects might slot in where Fast does, and when it does, then we have a "top 6 guy" playing in the bottom 6. To me, that's depth.

The second point of disagreement: Can players like Di G, Gaut, Howden, prospect A, B or C fill Fast shoes? I'm not willing to say yes until one of them has consistently proven that they can. Fast spent YEARS playing a support role on 3 and 4 line. Those other guys will likely have to do the same.

And finally, you're wrong. I'm right. If you don't like it, suck on deez nuts


- Bean_Dip

This is where we disagree.

Do I think Fast is an elite sniper, world class passer that is solidified in the top 6? Not at all. But he is the epitome of a role player who can play in the top 6. Everyone points to the chemistry b/t Panarin and Strome as the reason for both players having career years, but I'm of the belief it's the little things Fast does that supports that fact. He is currently playing in the top 6, so he should not be classified as a bottom 6 player. That then raises the question, would you be comfortable spending $3M on a top 6 player? I think we'd unanimously agree the answer is yes. That money saved by having a player like Fast in the top 6 is capital spent elsewhere. It's a matter of perspective I suppose. One day, one of the prospects might slot in where Fast does, and when it does, then we have a "top 6 guy" playing in the bottom 6. To me, that's depth.

The second point of disagreement: Can players like Di G, Gaut, Howden, prospect A, B or C fill Fast shoes? I'm not willing to say yes until one of them has consistently proven that they can. Fast spent YEARS playing a support role on 3 and 4 line. Those other guys will likely have to do the same.

And finally, you're wrong. I'm right. If you don't like it, suck on deez nuts


- Bean_Dip

Don't forget though that part of what made Fast a good piece for this team was that he himself was an effective replacement for Hags. I know people will argue with me, but I don't think Fast was ever as good as Hags was, but to me point he did most of the things Hags could do and we replaced Hags breakout speed with Grabner. It can be done, and smart teams do it over and over again.

I know for example the Penguins everyone says it's because Crosby and Malkin, but with their salaries they often either have to look at internal options or sign cheap bargains of the free agency market. Those guys have made a living doing that. The years they have won, Sid and Malkin were huge parts of it for sure, but they were helped greatly by guys like Guentzel and Hornquist who were underpayed for the production they provided.

I think you also have to look at the depth chart too. I know there is constant talk to moving Buch or Kravstov to LW, but lets say that doesn't happen with CK resigned and Kravs makes the team. Are you then playing Fast on the 4th line? Hindering Kravstov's development by sticking him of the 4th? I'd rather have Gaut there making pennies and someone who at best is a 2nd/3rd line tweener than choosing a potential sniper or a 3 million 4th liner,

Don't forget too, if you Sign Fast for 3 years, Kakko is a RFA in 2. If he breaks out, you'll wish you had that extra money.

Oh Ok so you think I pulled 5 or 6 years out of my ass?? Ok my reasoning for him wanting term.

He is 28, why would he want a 3 year deal? So he could become a FA at 31? Would you take a 3 yr contract?

This is his first crack at free agency. This is the players first crack to hit a home run for a big time contract. He is a bottom six forward who will not be putting up spectacular numbers in the future.



You value him so, Im sure he thinks just as highly of himself.
- Brukie

Idk man, 3 year deals are pretty standard for players of his caliber. I can see 4, but a 6 year deal...that seems dramatic.

Is Brian Boyle a fair comparison? Hags is the other that comes to mind, so maybe somewhere in the middle? That would put him right at the 3/3 contract everyone has floated.

- B2B76

Dean Snuts 4 prez, VP Harry Butz (no joke, I know a Harry Butz)

Dean Snuts 4 prez, VP Harry Butz (no joke, I know a Harry Butz)
- Bean_Dip

I knew a girl with the last name Crotchfelt. That was awkward

Dean Snuts 4 prez, VP Harry Butz (no joke, I know a Harry Butz)
- Bean_Dip

I knew a Mike Hunt. He liked to be called Michael

I knew a girl with the last name Crotchfelt. That was awkward
- mdw7413

Was her first name Ivana?

Don't forget though that part of what made Fast a good piece for this team was that he himself was an effective replacement for Hags. I know people will argue with me, but I don't think Fast was ever as good as Hags was, but to me point he did most of the things Hags could do and we replaced Hags breakout speed with Grabner. It can be done, and smart teams do it over and over again.

I know for example the Penguins everyone says it's because Crosby and Malkin, but with their salaries they often either have to look at internal options or sign cheap bargains of the free agency market. Those guys have made a living doing that. The years they have won, Sid and Malkin were huge parts of it for sure, but they were helped greatly by guys like Guentzel and Hornquist who were underpayed for the production they provided.

I think you also have to look at the depth chart too. I know there is constant talk to moving Buch or Kravstov to LW, but lets say that doesn't happen with CK resigned and Kravs makes the team. Are you then playing Fast on the 4th line? Hindering Kravstov's development by sticking him of the 4th? I'd rather have Gaut there making pennies and someone who at best is a 2nd/3rd line tweener than choosing a potential sniper or a 3 million 4th liner,

Don't forget too, if you Sign Fast for 3 years, Kakko is a RFA in 2. If he breaks out, you'll wish you had that extra money.
- 2sticks1puck

Kakko and Fox are BOTH RFAs in 2 years. We simply can't be paying Fast $3 mill/yr ( or more ) if we want to keep them. I like Fast but I wouldn't go more than a year or 2 on his next contract --- just not good asset management...

Was her first name Ivana?
- eichiefs9

wasnt her maiden name Tinkle?

Was her first name Ivana?
- eichiefs9

That would have been great, if I remember correctly it was Susan and she had a sister too. It was in HS, that was a hazy time for me

I knew a girl with the last name Crotchfelt. That was awkward
- mdw7413

How would you like to be Rusty Kuntz?

I knew a girl with the last name Crotchfelt. That was awkward
- mdw7413

You also know a Gabe Athaus

Idk man, 3 year deals are pretty standard for players of his caliber. I can see 4, but a 6 year deal...that seems dramatic.

Is Brian Boyle a fair comparison? Hags is the other that comes to mind, so maybe somewhere in the middle? That would put him right at the 3/3 contract everyone has floated.
- Bean_Dip

I know what you are saying 3 for 3 would be great for this team. In 3 yrs time we will know how the prospects are panning out.

My take is on Brooks article. Yes he is a Richard but if talks broke down, I bet it was for term. I think the Rangers would have jumped at 3 for 3

That would have been great, if I remember correctly it was Susan and she had a sister too. It was in HS, that was a hazy time for me
- mdw7413

Was her dad Howie Feltersnatch?

Was her dad Howie Feltersnatch?
- eichiefs9

Carrie Cutyerc*ckoff

How would you like to be Rusty Kuntz?
- RustyKuntz

Was her dad Howie Feltersnatch?
- eichiefs9

https://www.findhealthcli...Dr.-Howie-Feltersnatch-MD

I know what you are saying 3 for 3 would be great for this team. In 3 yrs time we will know how the prospects are panning out.

My take is on Brooks article. Yes he is a Richard but if talks broke down, I bet it was for term. I think the Rangers would have jumped at 3 for 3
- Brukie

But eventually, market forces take hold. He's not going to make that much more than that 3/3 offer. So the conversation goes back to making a little less in a top tier city, with the chance of playing in the top 6 for an extended period

vs.

Making a little more in a sub-optimal city, likely playing in the bottom 6

Like TJ said, I think he stays in NY for a little less, and I don't base that on my opinion of the player. I just get those vibes.

Kakko and Fox are BOTH RFAs in 2 years. We simply can't be paying Fast $3 mill/yr ( or more ) if we want to keep them. I like Fast but I wouldn't go more than a year or 2 on his next contract --- just not good asset management...
- TommyGTrain

Are we to believe that Fast getting 3 years at 3 mill per is going to make us lose Kakko or Fox? Cmon man

The cap goes up every summer (maybe not this summer) and we have roughly 17 million coming off after next year.

People over analyze the caps of teams waaaaay to much. Some teams have big issues, but we are not Toronto or Tb by any stretch, for example

Dean Snuts 4 prez, VP Harry Butz (no joke, I know a Harry Butz)
- Bean_Dip

Knew a Harry Palmer. Personally, I'd go by my middle name.

There a few signed players I’d love to see moved, or bought out, or retire. But, I’d sign Fast for market instead of overpaying for Strome. Without any doubt.