Derek21 Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I don't see it as a bad move, just not a good move. Shanahan has scored 3 playoff goals in the last 3 playoff years, his lack of scoring is one of the main reasons why the Wings haven't gone further in the playoffs. To me, Shanny floats way more than he used to - he's also 37 years old and on a one year deal. He had Pavel Datysuk as his center last year - this year it's going to be Martin Straka or Michal Nylander, a definite step down. I put his top end at 30 goals, and he's not the physical presence he was in the 90s. For one year, it's a good move. As long as the production is there, that will give the Rangers the scoring balance they lacked. And for all the talk that Shanny isn't what he used to be, he still will grind it out. The Rangers had nobody to do that against the Devils. It made them an easy out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruins4777 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 well see...i don't see elias as a great clutch player either. i do feel he is one of the top 3 lw in all of hockey and probably the most complete one, but i've never seen him as a "pure clutch" playoff player. a lot of shanny's best stats come from first round loses where he puts up a fat amount of points. specifically early on in his career with the blues/devils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldply123 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Shanahans production will drop off considerably...... That said........ He is a lethal addition to the Ranger PP unit, and causes headaches for the PK units, he also can not only provide a 1-2 punch on the PP with Jagr, but he can also allow the Rangers to rest Jagr a little bit more in situations that could allow for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 well see...i don't see elias as a great clutch player either. i do feel he is one of the top 3 lw in all of hockey and probably the most complete one, but i've never seen him as a "pure clutch" playoff player.a lot of shanny's best stats come from first round loses where he puts up a fat amount of points. specifically early on in his career with the blues/devils. In terms of Elias, 2000, 2001 and this past year were his best postseasons. Obviously, '00 ranks at the top because the Devils won their 2nd Cup on a brilliant no-look pass he made- plus his production was top notch with Arnott and Sykora. 2001 that trio was superb again before falling short to Colorado in Game 7. Ironically, it was Sykora who showed up the most at the end. This past year, Elias was the main reason the Devils were even in the playoffs. And he backed it up with a great performance against the Rangers where 11 of his 16 points came. On Shanahan, one other thing I was thinking about as to why it's a good signing is because there were way too many instances last year where the Rangers power play had all lefthanded shots out there. They'd have to continually pass the puck around until they could get a one-timer from the right side. It made it easier for PK units to anticipate. Outside of Prucha, they had no other righthanded threat. Shanahan instantly changes that dynamic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 For the PP, the kind of issues that Shanahan was having w/Babcock don't really come into play. So he should fit in just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 You are the same person who said the Rangers were nothing without Jagr. Now they finally go out and get a some much needed additional scoring and you rip that too. Would you do the same thing if it was the Devils? We both know the answer. Again, nice evasion from the original issue. But really, I LMAO when I saw the salary and why Detroit was offering alot less money to sign him. Shanahan is one of the last players I would want on the Devils. The Devils win by growing their own players, not overpaying for someone else's refuse. The Rangers just had one of the most successful turnarounds in the NHL, based on using the Devils homegrown principles. They were exposed in the playoffs and Sather panics goes back to ways of (literally) old. Shanahan is NOT what they needed. Shanahan is just the latest in the recurring errors joining Val Kamensky, Bobby Holik, Theo Fleury and other aging/faded star to play at MSG. You just wasted $4 million on a player for 1-year. Rucinsky was a better fit, and now he is probably gone. The Rangers needed more depth and they squandered it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 A healthy Lundqvist and Jagr still wouldn't have been enough to beat the Devils. There was no secondary scoring threat. That's what was addressed. And unlike most of our Eurowusses who play strictly on the perimeter, Shanahan doesn't. I'm done replying to you. You are a hypocrite. Anything the Devils do is great even when it was proven to not be the case. You still believe Malakhov, McGillis and Mogilny were awesome moves. That says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldply123 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I think the key will be in keeping Shanahan fresh, and not overusing him. He is very capable on the PP as a second punch behind Jagr, and you can play him on the second line at regular strength and he will be fine. I actually like what the Rangers have done, it shows theyre filling needs, but not overpaying, and theyre just trying to make a fit where they can. These signings are nothing like the drunken sailor splurges on Holik, Kamensky etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 The problem with Shanahan is that he too is now a perimeter player. I wouldn't be shocked if he scored 30-35, but I wouldn't be shocked if he scored 20 and was a non-factor either. You never know what a new environment will to do a player, especially one who's pretty clearly on his last contract like Shanahan is. I've never liked Shanahan and I wouldn't be too happy with him given his recent playoff play. But he is better than most of what's out there, just a little more of gamble. I think coldply is right in saying that Ranger management should be careful not to let him wear down during the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 If they go and sign Leetch, it will all be history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 If they go and sign Leetch, it will all be history. I thought that was all Dellapina stirring things up...not actually serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 A healthy Lundqvist and Jagr still wouldn't have been enough to beat the Devils. There was no secondary scoring threat. That's what was addressed. And unlike most of our Eurowusses who play strictly on the perimeter, Shanahan doesn't. I'm done replying to you. You are a hypocrite. Anything the Devils do is great even when it was proven to not be the case. You still believe Malakhov, McGillis and Mogilny were awesome moves. That says it all. Either you have reading comprehension issues or you just can't defend your comments and need to change the subject. As has been sighted several times here by others and also in print is that Shanahan is no longer a "powerforward" he tends to shy away from contact and has adapted the perimeter "eurowussy" style of play, which ran him out of favor with Babcock. As far as your effort to diminish me with your aspersions: Yes, at the time I thought that Malakhov, Mcgillis and Rafalski were great moves as a result of Niedermayer leaving and yes, I thought when Patty looked like he would be out with HEP that Mogilny was a great replacement. It didn't work out. I fail to see how that is hypocritical. As far as the Rangers: I praised Renney all of last season (until the playoffs) and touted him for coach of the year, I also made it known that I thought Jagr was my choice for MVP. This offseason, when the Rangers signed Ward and Straka I voiced my opinion that they were very good moves. Yes, the Rangers need help on the second line, which I see you finally agree with me on; I see the signing of Shanahan as an expensive step backward and a return to the "glory days" of the Sather Ranger reign of error by infusing old age into last years successful youth movement. Welcome back to the days of Val Kamensky!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bg. Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Everything you said was good up until you compared Shanahan to Kamensky. That's just silly - two signings are as different as night and day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Shanny will pot at least 30 goals for the Rags next year. A great pickup, that can even do more than the minimum I mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 The Kamensky comparison was just a symbol of the failed strategy of signing expensive older players to contracts---- it wasn't meant as a direct comparison. Highly unlikely that Shanny scores 30---its a huge drop-off in talent when your being fed by Yzerman or Datsyuk. Cullen will most likely be his new center. Also Shanahan will not be on the first PP unit, that will still be Jagr/Nylander/Straka which was a main reason for their success last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.