Template talk:New York Rangers roster

UFAs

Restored Shanahan to the roster. Jagr isn't returning; not sure about Straka. Anyways, I thought we kept UFAs on the roster, unless they were bought out, signed elswhere, or (in Jagr's case) were confirmed as not returning to team. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Jagr & Straka aren't returning, but the rest should stay for now I guess. Just removed Bourret because he was traded at the draft and left in. IrisKawling (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense how this is regulated.People who not on the roster on the Ranger website, which outrules this, are on here, 91 was taken off of naslund which is on the site as his number. how did you figure out how to edit this, seriously? Dayday79 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, Naslund isn't even listed on the Rangers roster on their website. Second, there is no number on his NHL.com realm (rangers.nhl.com / nhl.com) roster page. Lastly, the regulation is simple: it's the offseason, players stay on their last team's page until they're somewhere else. Jc121383 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an advertisement that is running on the Rangers' website for their store which shows Zherdev as #13 and Naslund as #91. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what counts as official now? He's not even on the roster on the Rangers website!!Jc121383 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voros and Rissmiller also weren't on the roster for a long time, and now they are listed as the same number (34). Obviously, we can do a better job here than they do at the Rangers website. These signings are official, but the issue is that Naslund has not been properly introduced, in my opinion, since he has been in Europe. -- bmitchelf•T•F 12:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia. people aren't coming here and thinking, "oh it;s the offseason they must of let them on". They want to see a correct roster,unlike what the rangers website offers, which is still better than this. You don't make it how you see it, you make it how it is and how people will see it.Then when it comes time to edit it, you edit it again. Dayday79 (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you have to go by what the official sources say, and rangers.nhl.com is the definitive source for this information. -Djsasso (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Shanahan from roster due to his no longer being listed by both the NHL and the NY Rangers as a member of the team. 66.65.38.206 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC) G.[reply]

It's likely that unless the Rangers sign Sundin, Shanahan will be re-signed. [1][2][3][4] It seems to be the opinion of most WP:HOCKEY editors that UFAs should remain on the rosters in the off-season until it becomes absolutely clear they won't be back. Has Shanahan signed elsewhere or retired or declared his intention to do so? No, his first choice is to remain with the Rangers. Have the Rangers declared their intention to move on without Shanahan? No, he appears to be their Plan B if they can't sign Sundin.
While the official source should be followed closely, did you know that not only do the LA Kings not list RFAs O'Sullivan and Richardson, but they list what appears to be their entire training camp roster? [5]--Flyer47 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL no longer lists Shanahan as a Ranger, nor does the Rangers organization. While yes there are talks of Shanny coming back [6], one needs to realize unless something is signed he is not a member of the 2008-09 team and should not be included on a roster which would indicate otherwise and mislead viewers of the roster. If you want, I would support the creation of a new section that would include the unsigned players/free agents. Just do not have them indicated with a roster where they are shown as active when they are not a current active member of the team. 66.65.38.206 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC) G[reply]

(UFA) appears next to his name for a reason. Also, the composition of the 2008-09 Rangers has not been 100% determined yet and that applies for every team actually. If Shanahan remains unsigned and/or his status remains undetermined by the time the final roster is set (sometime prior to opening night), at that point he should probably be hidden or removed. --Flyer47 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, someone else removes Shanny from the list and there is no discussion 150.210.226.2 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)G[reply]

I agree, it's about time. the off-season is over and he isn't signed. IrisKawling (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also funny how nobody objected when Marek Malik was taken off of the roster. :) Good job there so far predicting Shanahan's return, Flyer47. I do agree with his placement there during the offseason, but once training camp began and he didn't even have a tryout, it was time to go. -- bmitchelf•T•F 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]