It's Time to Have the Lafrenière Conversation

[Morphinity 2.0]

33 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't think you can blame coaching and ice time on the fact that he has done nothing in the offseason to better himself. Again, why isn't he working with a power skating coach or a skills coach? The whole kid line should be training with Adam Oates. They're not. The team can't force them to do anything they don't want to do it during the off season, all they can do is suggest. But it's up to the player to do it themselves. 

It's this right here. He needs to put in more work. Brayden Point was a 3rd round pick mainly because of his skating issues, but he put the work in, linked up with Barb Underhill, and just learning to skate better transformed his game.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

48 minutes ago, Pete said:

"1 of the other LW" means Panarin who's immoveable, to the point where people should stop talking about it.

 

Even if Drury wanted to move him, and there is no indication that he does, bread first needs to want out and there's no indication that HE does. Then you need to find a trade partner which would require approval from the player, the requisite assets and cap room coming back to make the trade worthwhile, just a bunch of dreams from people on message boards.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible to trade him, I'm saying out of all the suggestions none of them are viable or realistic, and even if they are they don't make the team better. 

why you gotta rain on the parade

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, Vodka Drunkenski said:

why you gotta rain on the parade

Because he's a valuable player and I'd rather find a way to remove the blockers from him having playoff success than remove him from the team.

[BrooksBurner]

23 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

It's this right here. He needs to put in more work. Brayden Point was a 3rd round pick mainly because of his skating issues, but he put the work in, linked up with Barb Underhill, and just learning to skate better transformed his game.

 

So why not let him do this and then re-evaluate? When he gains a half step to full step, gets stronger on his skates, and his body fills out, it will accentuate the good traits he has. Good traits being he likes to forecheck and bang around, but he's too slow and too weak for it to be effective or to create turnovers on the forecheck. We saw Kakko make gains in these departments and he made a good jump in both production and how he looked on ice. He went from around a 30 point player to 40 points. If Lafreniere is already a 40 point player, where does he go?

 

I was right beside folks this year saying the Rangers need to probably move one of these kids because they couldn't afford to waste the core waiting for the development to happen if the ceiling is 50-60 points. I've since realized that they aren't winning with a $12M dud in their lineup. It's just not happening. Nobody wins like that. As far as I'm concerned, the Rangers need to pivot and stop asking "how do we win now with a 32 year old winger who falls apart in the playoffs". That ship has sailed.

[Ozzy]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

Why is everyone just ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter what would have happened to Lafreniere if he was drafted 3 years ago by a really bad team.

 

He wasn't, he was drafted to a really competitive team. Maybe that hurt his development but it is what it is. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube and nor does it matter to the team moving forward. He has no role here.

 

But that's just point number one.

 

Point number two that nobody really ever wants to address or answer is that he has shown no glimpses of anything at all (aside from the one deke he pulled off twice) that would make you think he had the requisite skill set to be a top line player in the NHL.

 

Let's go through it again, he's not fast enough, he's not strong enough, he doesn't have enough hockey sense, he doesn't have enough creativity, he doesn't have a good enough shot, to be a top line player.

 

What has anyone seen in his game to make them think he should be given more responsibility?

 

The people who watch this team closely and have spent years following this sport and reporting on it are saying he doesn't have what it takes. 

 

The same people who are saying we're wasting the competitive window are the ones saying let's just see what we have in him! Meanwhile this guy has done nothing to force a coach to keep him in the lineup. There are players who every time they are out on the ice are creating something, and it has nothing to do with being on the power play. They're doing the little things and those little things are being built on to create big opportunities. Lafreniere doesn't do that nearly enough.

 

It's really just time to move on, if he flourishes somewhere else that's great, but much like ADA it was never going to happen here. 

 

Ok, Ok!!  You got me!  I'm in....

 

You guys know I've been behind this kid all the way since day 1.  ...but this cannot be ignored anymore.

 

I've had a couple of days to digest all the opinions, and points everyone has made on this kid, and I've come to grips with the fact that, yes....it's time.  It's time to cut bait on this kid, because it's just not there.  It kills me to swallow the fact that we have a chance of a lifetime to get a generational talent with a #1OA and we get this!  ...just makes me shake my fucking head!

 

I doubt we get anything good for him, because honestly...if I were a GM, I wouldn't give a whole helluva lot to get a player that has shown dick for improvement since his draft.  I love Drury as GM, and he's been a magician since he's been here, but if he can pull off getting anything of value for this kid.....yeah, good luck with that!

 

 

[siddious]

If they keep him this contract negotiation might get ugly. 39 pts he’s due for what… $3mil?

 

 There’s no fucking way in hell they should offer him that kind of money 

[jsm7302]

46 minutes ago, siddious said:

If they keep him this contract negotiation might get ugly. 39 pts he’s due for what… $3mil?

 

 There’s no fucking way in hell they should offer him that kind of money 

Under 3 mil would be a miracle. Def going to be looking for 3-4 mil.

[Morphinity 2.0]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

So why not let him do this and then re-evaluate? When he gains a half step to full step, gets stronger on his skates, and his body fills out, it will accentuate the good traits he has. Good traits being he likes to forecheck and bang around, but he's too slow and too weak for it to be effective or to create turnovers on the forecheck. We saw Kakko make gains in these departments and he made a good jump in both production and how he looked on ice. He went from around a 30 point player to 40 points. If Lafreniere is already a 40 point player, where does he go?

 

I was right beside folks this year saying the Rangers need to probably move one of these kids because they couldn't afford to waste the core waiting for the development to happen if the ceiling is 50-60 points. I've since realized that they aren't winning with a $12M dud in their lineup. It's just not happening. Nobody wins like that. As far as I'm concerned, the Rangers need to pivot and stop asking "how do we win now with a 32 year old winger who falls apart in the playoffs". That ship has sailed.

Absolutely, I would love it if he did that. But he's going into his 3rd off-season and he's never shown up to training camp with anything but a new beard. So why would he start now?

[Ozzy]

$3 million a year????????

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, siddious said:

If they keep him this contract negotiation might get ugly. 39 pts he’s due for what… $3mil?

 

 There’s no fucking way in hell they should offer him that kind of money 

Why not? The general rule of thumb is $1M per 10 points, right?

[RJWantsTheCup]

If they can't trade him for something decent they should offer him a deal similar to Kakko's

[BrooksBurner]

7 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Absolutely, I would love it if he did that. But he's going into his 3rd off-season and he's never shown up to training camp with anything but a new beard. So why would he start now?

I do think there’s been some improvement in these areas from year one to year three, just not enough. We don’t know if it’s a guidance issue (being told what he needs to do, or stressing the importance of it) or a lack of determination. It’s correctable, and it either gets corrected or it doesn’t. I’m willing to give more time to find out.

 

Honest question. If he had Panarin’s spot on PP1 this year, what do you think his final production would have looked like? 45 points? 50 points? 55 points? And might we have more optimism? Might he have more confidence and natural pep in his step?

[Pete]

19 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Honest question. If he had Panarin’s spot on PP1 this year, what do you think his final production would have looked like? 45 points? 50 points? 55 points? And might we have more optimism? Might he have more confidence and natural pep in his step?

It's irrelevant! He didn't have the spot. He didn't earn the spot. He's not getting the spot.

 

This crusade against Panarin is approaching pure comedy.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

It's irrelevant! He didn't have the spot. He didn't earn the spot. He's not getting the spot.

 

This crusade against Panarin is approaching pure comedy.

 

It's not irrelevant, and it's not a crusade against Panarin. It's a legitimate exercise to gauge where Lafreniere might be developmentally if he had that opportunity at any point in his career, because it should help guide what to do with him.

 

I'll go first. I think he'd be over 50 points, probably around 55, and I think the conversation would be he's another good step away from 65-70. The team would be worse in the short term in exchange for the long term. I wasn't willing to accept that until now.

[Morphinity 2.0]

Why should they make the team worse to develop a player? The NHL is not a developmental league.

EDIT: Unless you're a tanking team. 

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Why should they make the team worse to develop a player? The NHL is not a developmental league.

EDIT: Unless you're a tanking team. 

 

Should the Devils have played Jack Hughes after a 21 pt in 61 game rookie season, or signed someone immediately better?

 

I feel like you know the answer to your own question, and the black and white nature of the question is illegitimate.

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

It's not irrelevant, and it's not a crusade against Panarin. It's a legitimate exercise to gauge where Lafreniere might be developmentally if he had that opportunity at any point in his career, because it should help guide what to do with him.

No it shouldn't! It doesn't matter what someone guesses, he would be, if only 5 things that aren't going to happen, happen! Maybe he got dealt a shit hand by being handed to a competitive team, but it doesn't matter, he's on a competitive team.

 

Quote

I'll go first. I think he'd be over 50 points, probably around 55, and I think the conversation would be he's another good step away from 65-70. The team would be worse in the short term in exchange for the long term. I wasn't willing to accept that until now.

So we should waste 2-3 years of other player's primes waiting for what a guy who doesn't put a ton of effort into development may do with gifted ice time he didn't earn? Nah dawg, that ain't the way.

 

4 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Why should they make the team worse to develop a player? The NHL is not a developmental league.

EDIT: Unless you're a tanking team. 

Bingo!

[Sharpshooter]

Jack Hughes is why you need to be patient with young players. Am I saying Lafreniere is going to be Jack Hughes? No, but people were anointing Hughes a bust not too long ago.

[RJWantsTheCup]

Not sure how Hughes compares to the Lafraniere situation.  This wasn't Lafraniere's first season and the Devils weren't in a win now position like the Rangers currently are.

[siddious]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Why not? The general rule of thumb is $1M per 10 points, right?

Because 3 mil can be spent better. That’s just my opinion. 

[Sharpshooter]

Yeah, I mean with Laf I just don't think he's going to be that great. I just meant, generally, some players develop at different paces. Lafreniere was thrust into a very different situation too than most top five picks.

[Scott]

The devils were bottom feeders with nowhere to go but up, if we want to return to that point and roll from there it would make more sense.  Laugh hasn't been nailed to the 3rd line since joining the team. He's been given other opportunities to play up. I believe he started out on the top line out of the gate (I could be wrong) and he quickly failed. They were never going to tank the PP when it was such  weapon that carried them through the last few regular seasons just to fluff Laugh.

[Scott]

4 minutes ago, siddious said:

Because 3 mil can be spent better. That’s just my opinion. 

 

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Why not? The general rule of thumb is $1M per 10 points, right?

so his 39 points has his right below 4 mil per season, woof.

[Cash or Czech]

He's going to get a bridge deal in the mid-$2M range just like Kakko and Chytil did.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, jsrangers said:

The devils were bottom feeders with nowhere to go but up, if we want to return to that point and roll from there it would make more sense.  Laugh hasn't been nailed to the 3rd line since joining the team. He's been given other opportunities to play up. I believe he started out on the top line out of the gate (I could be wrong) and he quickly failed. They were never going to tank the PP when it was such  weapon that carried them through the last few regular seasons just to fluff Laugh.

 

Right, and I agreed with that until now. I've seen enough of what the team has to offer in the playoffs where I don't really care as much about making it when I can write the last chapter of how it ends.

 

Typical Rangers would be to trade young players so they can double down on a 32 year old $12M winger, who has no more room to get better with time and experience. This is what he is. @Pete should be happy to find out that my renewed way of thinking about this situation means I also want to keep Miller on the off chance he proves me wrong about remaining a defensive liability. The franchise will be better off in 2-3 years for taking it on the chin next year.