Thoughts (on the content, not on the writing)?
Thanks for writing and sharing the article Leslie.
For feedback, contextually, the article was too much of an editorial piece. Sure it's a topic Ranger fans are thinking about, but give it some substance they don't have or don't know by adding some kind of insider or objective information.
Insider info, complete objectivity and a history of being reliable and believable is what gives Bob Mckenzie a god like status. Insider info is also difficult to come by, so I'd recommend sticking with your niche and exploiting it. There's value in being a specialist or you can grow your niche/resources over time and reach a broader market. The infamous Eklund is an example of where editorializing represented as insider info can gain you lots of attention if you do it loud enough, though there will be those who absolutely loath you. Shock radio gets attention because there are junkies who are hooked on it and because even bad press is good press.
There's lots of objective information freely available out there. Most fans don't take the time to crunch the numbers and connect the dots between them, though they'll read it and it'll be new information to find interesting. An example in your article would be if Pirri is to have a 3-5pt impact, back it up with numbers. Jim Boomer Gordon offers his opinion all the time, however he also backs it up or evaluates it with his "Stats Packs". Either way it gives him credibility and gives the listeners/readers information to contemplate on a topic they're interested in.
Heck adding more objective info could turn this article into 5 articles and give you a post a day for a week. Start Monday with the root article "what if the ranger don't trade"...."this week we'll explore this topic by looking at ...." daily topic concluding with the one we most crave on Friday with a summary.
Now go crunch some numbers and dig-up the insider goods, because I'm starving for some hockey
PS: I hope this was the kind of feedback you were looking for.