Mercogliano A Detailed Look at What the NY Rangers Are Getting in Veteran Coach Peter Laviolette

[BrooksBurner]

16 minutes ago, Pete said:

If your premise for the entire argument is that he's not a core player who hasn't gotten it done, then you're wrong from jump. He's the epitome of the core player who has not gotten it done.

 

You have a hit list of guys you want to trade and he's not on it, that's cool, but don't try and make it make sense because it doesn't. 

 

If you're tearing it down to the studs, and you should, he's at the top of the trade list because you can get the most for him and he's that far over 30 and not part of the future anyway. 

 

Core players represent a team’s few best players, who you don’t move under any circumstance except “nuke it”, and are also generally considered top players in the league. Kreider has never been viewed in this fashion - always as a complimentary player which is correct. You didn’t even want to re-sign him. How’s that for a core player? Lol. Ultimate 180 just to try and argue for the sake of arguing.

 

Panarin, Zibanejad, Fox, Shesterkin. That’s the core. In this hypothetical and unlikely  scenario of missing the playoffs, it will be because the core relied on to do the heavy lifting didn’t get it done, or got hurt.

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Core players represent a team’s few best players, who you don’t move under any circumstance except “nuke it”, and are also generally considered top players in the league. Kreider has never been viewed in this fashion - always as a complimentary player which is correct. You didn’t even want to re-sign him. How’s that for a core player? Lol. Ultimate 180 just to try and argue for the sake of arguing.

 

Panarin, Zibanejad, Fox, Shesterkin. That’s the core. In this hypothetical and unlikely  scenario of missing the playoffs, it will be because the core relied on to do the heavy lifting didn’t get it done, or got hurt.

You're right, the longest tenured player on the team isn't part of the core. LOL.

 

 

You're grasping at straws, who cares if I wanted to resign him or not? That has nothing to do with the weather he is a core member of the team, which apparently the Rangers feel he is when they gave him that contract.

 

Take the L. 

[Albatrosss]

If the rangers dont make the playoffs there surely will be an excuse that the team didnt adjust to Lavi's system, or something else like it. They will going to give it another shot the following year by which time the core of Panarin, Zib, and Kreider will be too old to get a good return.  

 

Kreider is def. a core player for this team.  He's a complimentary player, like Brooks says but he's a core for this team.  I would've traded him after last season when his value was at all time high.  God only knows how much of a haul we would've gotten back for him.  

[RangersIn7]

Your core is the roughly the top third of your roster in every major sport. 

Thats 6-8 players in the NHL in practical terms.

 
3-4 forwards.

2-3 defensemen.

1 starting goalie.  
 

There is some flex for interpretation depending on your roster composition and style you play. 

[RangersIn7]

7 minutes ago, CCCP said:

If the rangers dont make the playoffs there surely will be an excuse that the team didnt adjust to Lavi's system, or something else like it. They will going to give it another shot the following year by which time the core of Panarin, Zib, and Kreider will be too old to get a good return.  

 

Kreider is def. a core player for this team.  He's a complimentary player, like Brooks says but he's a core for this team.  I would've traded him after last season when his value was at all time high.  God only knows how much of a haul we would've gotten back for him.  

I guess it depends how you define “complimentary player” and “core player.”

 

I agree Kreider is a core player.

Not a complimentary player. That’s the next tier.

 
88 goals in the last 2 seasons, plus 16 more and a point per game pace over the last two playoffs which is 27 games, wherein he’s had those 16 goals and 25 points.

That’s a core player. And not up for dispute, IMHO.

 

Maybe this is oversimplified, but a roster has 4 tiers:

 

Core players.

Complimentary players.

Role players.

Spare/Extra players. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by RangersIn7

[BrooksBurner]

47 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Your core is the roughly the top third of your roster in every major sport. 

Thats 6-8 players in the NHL in practical terms.

 
3-4 forwards.

2-3 defensemen.

1 starting goalie.  
 

There is some flex for interpretation depending on your roster composition and style you play. 

 

This is way too loose and also not something that can be blanket applied across every team. A core isn't always the same size from team to team. It depends where the drop off is. There's a clear difference between the Rangers top 4 players and anyone after it. There's no bridging the gap between Panarin/Zib/Fox/Shesterkin....and Kreider. It's a bridge much too far. Meanwhile for a team like Tampa, their core is larger. Kucherov/Point/Stamkos/Hedman/Vasi...and Sergachev is getting closer to that. The gap between the Rangers' 4 and Kreider is similar to the gap between Tampas' 5 or 6 and Killorn.

 

Kreider and Killorn are excellent complimentary pieces.

Edited July 26, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[RangersIn7]

24 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

This is way too loose and also not something that can be blanket applied across every team. A core isn't always the same size from team to team. It depends where the drop off is. There's a clear difference between the Rangers top 4 players and anyone after it. There's no bridging the gap between Panarin/Zib/Fox/Shesterkin....and Kreider. It's a bridge much too far. Meanwhile for a team like Tampa, their core is larger. Kucherov/Point/Stamkos/Hedman/Vasi...and Sergachev is getting closer to that. The gap between the Rangers' 4 and Kreider is similar to the gap between Tampas' 5 or 6 and Killorn.

 

Kreider and Killorn are excellent complimentary pieces.

I see your point.

 

But as I said, there is flex and interpretation.

 

But if you’re saying that CK isn’t a core piece, as an alternate captain, the longest tenured Ranger, and had 104 goals in the last 2 seasons, spanning 187 total games, I’m sorry bro.

The “gap” you’re referring to isn’t real.

Thats a 45 goal player over the last 2 years paced our over 82 games.

 
I can’t agree with that. 
 

It’s not necessarily 100% tied to production either.

Its also about how they are used and trusted and what other ways in which they contribute.

 

Id say the Rangers core is 8 players:

 

Zib

Panarin

Fox

Igor

Trouba

Miller

Trochek

 

Now you can argue what the quality of that core is.

But in real terms, that’s the core.

 

But it’s fluid, flexible, subject to change both periodically and permanently, and open for some interpretation.

Plus there are the cap implications.

Paying a guy a certain amount kind of puts them in or out of that group, depending.

 

Just my two cents.

Edited July 26, 2023 by RangersIn7

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

I see your point.

 

But as I said, there is flex and interpretation.

 

But if you’re saying that CK isn’t a core piece, as an alternate captain, the longest tenured Ranger, and had 104 goals in the last 2 seasons, spanning 187 total games, I’m sorry bro.

The “gap” you’re referring to isn’t real.

Thats a 45 goal player over the last 2 years paced our over 82 games.

 
I can’t agree with that. 
 

It’s not necessarily 100% tied to production either.

Its also about how they are used and trusted and what other ways in which they contribute.

 

Id say the Rangers core is 8 players:

 

Zib

Panarin

Fox

Igor

Trouba

Miller

Trochek

 

Now you can argue what the quality of that core is.

But in real terms, that’s the core.

 

But it’s fluid, flexible, subject to change both periodically and permanently, and open for some interpretation.

Plus there are the cap implications.

Paying a guy a certain amount kind of puts them in or out of that group, depending.

 

Just my two cents.

 

It's all good man. It's subjective, and just a difference in opinion about where the line of separation is. To me, you are clearly including second and third tier quality players in your definition here, so it makes sense you include Kreider in the convo. There's just way too big of a gap between the top 4 and the bottom 4 (3 + Kreider) on your list. I just don't agree, and I don't think tenure matters in the conversation either. Girardi was here for 10 years, and a fan favorite for a good portion of that, but I never looked at him as a core player either.

[RangersIn7]

17 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

It's all good man. It's subjective, and just a difference in opinion about where the line of separation is. To me, you are clearly including second and third tier quality players in your definition here, so it makes sense you include Kreider in the convo. There's just way too big of a gap between the top 4 and the bottom 4 (3 + Kreider) on your list. I just don't agree, and I don't think tenure matters in the conversation either. Girardi was here for 10 years, and a fan favorite for a good portion of that, but I never looked at him as a core player either.

Yeah. 
 

I just don’t see how Krieder and all of that production and the role he plays on and off the ice isn’t a core player. 
 

Again… 88 goals over last 2 regular seasons.

104 goals over last 187 games including playoffs over those 2 seasons.

Either way you slice it, he’s a 45-goal guy. 
18+ minutes per night. Alongside your top center. On your 1st PP. Killing penalties now for a few seasons. On the ice both with and against top players, and at the most crucial times. 

All of that is a core player.

And I don’t at all see a gap.

Hes their leading goal scorer over those 2 seasons.

 

 

If you disagree, that’s fine. I just can’t see the logic as to why you would disagree. But it’s whatever.
 

I would’ve put Girardi in the core too man. A 5 season stretch of averaging 24+ minutes per night as the RHD on your top pair. And he had one season in there where he was top-6 in Norris voting. 
Now, being in a team’s core doesn’t make you an elite player league wide. But that doesn’t mean your presence and what you do for your respective team isn’t core level. Girardi was never elite.

But he was absolutely in their core for a time. A time when they were in fact pretty damn good.

 

But it’s open for interpretation and you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

Edited July 26, 2023 by RangersIn7

[Pete]

Core and complimentary have nothing to do with each other IMO. They aren't part of the same tier. Krieder is complimentary because he doesn't drive play. He stands in front and waits for a deflection. He can't take over a game for you. He's complimentary as in he is a "compliment" to the line, but not a line driver.

 

He's core because he's been here a decade, is a top 6 player, plays in all situations, #1 PP, #1 PK, need a goal in the last minute, a player who've been relied on in the room as well.

 

There is no world where he's not considered a core player for the Rangers, despite what one person thinks.

 

And as it relates to this part of the conversation around what would happen in the Rangers blew it up...You don't shake up a room by trading Goodrow, or even Panarin who's been here for 1/4 of the time Kreider has. If you want to send a message that it's not good enough and we're blowing it up, there's no way Kreider survives and if he did, that cut isn't anywhere deeep enough.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

Yeah. 
 

I just don’t see how Krieder and all of that production and the role he plays on and off the ice isn’t a core player. 
 

Again… 88 goals over last 2 regular seasons.

104 goals over last 187 games including playoffs over those 2 seasons.

Either way you slice it, he’s a 45-goal guy. 
18+ minutes per night. Alongside your top center. On your 1st PP. Killing penalties now for a few seasons. On the ice both with and against top players, and at the most crucial times. 

All of that is a core player.

And I don’t at all see a gap.

Hes their leading goal scorer over those 2 seasons.

 

 

If you disagree, that’s fine. I just can’t see the logic as to why you would disagree. But it’s whatever.
 

I would’ve put Girardi in the core too man. A 5 season stretch of averaging 24+ minutes per night as the RHD on your top pair. And he had one season in there where he was top-6 in Norris voting. 
Now, being in a team’s core doesn’t make you an elite player league wide. But that doesn’t mean your presence and what you do for your respective team isn’t core level. Girardi was never elite.

But he was absolutely in their core for a time. A time when they were in fact pretty damn good.

 

But it’s open for interpretation and you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

There's no way you can say Kreider is a 45 goal scorer with a straight face. I really don't see how you can say you see no gap between a 50-60 point player and PPG+ players/Vezina goalie. I just can't see the logic here.

 

I see the logic behind you thinking he's done enough considering the whole package and how long he's been here. I don't agree, but I see that logic. The rest is just a big time oversell.

[BrooksBurner]

45 minutes ago, Pete said:

Core and complimentary have nothing to do with each other IMO. They aren't part of the same tier. Krieder is complimentary because he doesn't drive play. He stands in front and waits for a deflection. He can't take over a game for you. He's complimentary as in he is a "compliment" to the line, but not a line driver.

 

He's core because he's been here a decade, is a top 6 player, plays in all situations, #1 PP, #1 PK, need a goal in the last minute, a player who've been relied on in the room as well.

 

There is no world where he's not considered a core player for the Rangers, despite what one person thinks.

 

And as it relates to this part of the conversation around what would happen in the Rangers blew it up...You don't shake up a room by trading Goodrow, or even Panarin who's been here for 1/4 of the time Kreider has. If you want to send a message that it's not good enough and we're blowing it up, there's no way Kreider survives and if he did, that cut isn't anywhere deeep enough.

 

My standard for what constitutes a core is just higher. I don't think it's as simple as just looking at the 5 best players on each team or whatever. It's more nuanced than that. I agree with the bolded Kreider summarization, but I don't agree that you can describe his game that way and then put him in "the core". The core are the guys you essentially must have show up to have a chance to win, and if they disappear you're fucked. I've never heard anyone say "we just need Kreider to show up to have a chance". That's been said about Zib/Panarin/Fox/Shesterkin on repeat.

 

I will admit there's a large gray area where there's good players who have tenure, mean a lot to the org, whatever, that Kreider fits into. Jordan Staal in Carolina is a good one there too. The issue you run into is if you start including gray area players, you start to drag along other cruft like Trouba and Trocheck like @RangersIn7 did, and the line gets even more blurred.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

My standard for what constitutes a core is just higher. I don't think it's as simple as just looking at the 5 best players on each team or whatever. It's more nuanced than that. I agree with the bolded Kreider summarization, but I don't agree that you can describe his game that way and then put him in "the core". The core are the guys you essentially must have show up to have a chance to win, and if they disappear you're fucked. I've never heard anyone say "we just need Kreider to show up to have a chance". That's been said about Zib/Panarin/Fox/Shesterkin on repeat.

 

I will admit there's a large gray area where there's good players who have tenure, mean a lot to the org, whatever, that Kreider fits into. Jordan Staal in Carolina is a good one there too. The issue you run into is if you start including gray area players, you start to drag along other cruft like Trouba and Trocheck like @RangersIn7 did, and the line gets even more blurred.

He's part of the core because he's been here over a decade and he's a top player on the team that plays in every situation. I don't know how else you would define a core player. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

He's part of the core because he's been here over a decade and he's a top player on the team that plays in every situation. I don't know how else you would define a core player. 

 

Tenure doesn't matter that much to me in the convo, unless you're the Senators' and retiring Chris Neil's jersey. Was he a core player?

 

Trouba is Captain, Trocheck out-produced Kreider, and Miller was 2nd in skater minutes. Are they core players?

[Flynn]

Training camp can't get here fast enough.. 

 

 

[Ozzy]

Is it me, or does it seem like this off-season has been like 4 years or so???

[RJWantsTheCup]

25 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

Is it me, or does it seem like this off-season has been like 4 years or so???

Just imagine how long it would be if we missed the playoffs.  

[RangersIn7]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Core and complimentary have nothing to do with each other IMO. They aren't part of the same tier. Krieder is complimentary because he doesn't drive play. He stands in front and waits for a deflection. He can't take over a game for you. He's complimentary as in he is a "compliment" to the line, but not a line driver.

 

He's core because he's been here a decade, is a top 6 player, plays in all situations, #1 PP, #1 PK, need a goal in the last minute, a player who've been relied on in the room as well.

 

There is no world where he's not considered a core player for the Rangers, despite what one person thinks.

 

And as it relates to this part of the conversation around what would happen in the Rangers blew it up...You don't shake up a room by trading Goodrow, or even Panarin who's been here for 1/4 of the time Kreider has. If you want to send a message that it's not good enough and we're blowing it up, there's no way Kreider survives and if he did, that cut isn't anywhere deeep enough.

 

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

There's no way you can say Kreider is a 45 goal scorer with a straight face. I really don't see how you can say you see no gap between a 50-60 point player and PPG+ players/Vezina goalie. I just can't see the logic here.

 

I see the logic behind you thinking he's done enough considering the whole package and how long he's been here. I don't agree, but I see that logic. The rest is just a big time oversell.

 

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

My standard for what constitutes a core is just higher. I don't think it's as simple as just looking at the 5 best players on each team or whatever. It's more nuanced than that. I agree with the bolded Kreider summarization, but I don't agree that you can describe his game that way and then put him in "the core". The core are the guys you essentially must have show up to have a chance to win, and if they disappear you're fucked. I've never heard anyone say "we just need Kreider to show up to have a chance". That's been said about Zib/Panarin/Fox/Shesterkin on repeat.

 

I will admit there's a large gray area where there's good players who have tenure, mean a lot to the org, whatever, that Kreider fits into. Jordan Staal in Carolina is a good one there too. The issue you run into is if you start including gray area players, you start to drag along other cruft like Trouba and Trocheck like @RangersIn7 did, and the line gets even more blurred.

 

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Tenure doesn't matter that much to me in the convo, unless you're the Senators' and retiring Chris Neil's jersey. Was he a core player?

 

Trouba is Captain, Trocheck out-produced Kreider, and Miller was 2nd in skater minutes. Are they core players?

Kreider is a core player.

 

Tenure might not matter. But when you talk about a guy who other guys look to and who provides leadership, his tenure here is part of the reason as to why he’s part of the leadership group and why guys look to him.

You can’t argue with Kreider’s production. Period. 
Over the past 2 seasons, 160 regular season games, Kreider has a 52 and a 36 goal season.

Thats 44 goals on average per regular season.

If you add in his 16 goals over 27 playoff games, that’s 104 goals in 187 games, in total, over 2 seasons.

That’s .556 goals per game.

Multiply that by 82. That’s the length of a season.

What do you get?

45.6.

So, yeah. He’s averaged 45 G per season over the last 2 seasons.

That’s a mathematical fact. And it’s not taken out of context.

And he has a 50+ goal season. 
And in terms of playoff production, over the last 2 seasons, he’s actually scoring at a pace for 48 goals over 82 in the playoffs last 2 seasons.

 
You’re arguing based on somantics. And it’s a losing argument. 

Core player.

 

The obvious ones. In no particular order. We’d all agree with this, and if not, sorry to say you’re just wrong.

 

1) Zibanejad 

2) Panarin 

3) Fox

4) Igor

 

Kreider makes 5. For the reasons I mentioned.

 

6) Trouba- your Captain and plays 22 minutes a night in all situations. And makes $8 million per. Production aside, those factors put him in your core. Not arguing how good he is. But he’s in your core.

7) Trochek- 20+ goals, 60+ points, 19+ minutes a night, at center, plays in all situations, key faceoff guy. And you gave him 7 years and nearly $6 million per.

Not arguing the value or merits of his contract. But he’s in your core.

 

8- Miller- Your top LHD and plays more minutes than any other LHD over past 2 seasons. Eclipsed 40 points last year. Plays all situations. Moves between top 2 pairings regularly. And he’s 23 and still improving while already occupying huge role.

 

What did I say initially?

A team’s core is 6-8 players.

3-4 forwards

2-3 D

1 starting goalie

Im not arguing the quality of this, or any core. But that’s how it’s built. Those are the guys you lean on. 

 

I don’t see what you aren’t seeing. Or how I’m off base. 
It’s like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to make yourself right by making me wrong. Which doesn’t actually work or make your point, which I don’t see.

So yes, Miller and Trochek are core players at this point.

And Trochek may have out produced CK in points. But Kreider had more than 50% more goals then him this past season.

 

You don’t have to be a “play driver” to be part of a core. 
Driving play makes you offensively elite. But it’s not a requirement to be part of a teams core and be one of that 6-8 who you heavily rely upon.

Plus, for good, bad, or neutral, when you give a guy big money and big minutes in a prominent role, you’ve anointed that player as part of your core. Whether he should be there or not… he is.

 

 

Beachemin was never a play driver. Ask the guys who played with him in Anaheim when they won their Cup in 2007 if he was a core guy.

 

Sorry man. No disrespect. But your argument lacks logic, ignores facts,  and is full of holes.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by RangersIn7

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

He's part of the core because he's been here over a decade and he's a top player on the team that plays in every situation. I don't know how else you would define a core player. 

That and his production.

 

None of which are small things.

[RangersIn7]

And a core can be a bit flexible depending on your roster.

 For example, those Nashville teams from 5-6 years ago had 4 guys on D playing 23+ a night or better in Josi, Subban, Ekholm, and Ellis. 
And a bit less in terms of more premium guys up front (Arviddson, Forsberg, Johannsen), but with a bit more depth in the forward group.

 

A lesser team might have a smaller core of 6. Still in the 6-8 range though.

Or their core might not be as good.

 

But I  think that’s pretty self-evident.

 

Anyway… this has turned into a Russian novel.

Edited July 26, 2023 by RangersIn7

[Pete]

27 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

That and his production.

 

None of which are small things.

 

19 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

And a core can be a bit flexible depending on your roster.

 For example, those Nashville teams from 5-6 years ago had 4 guys on D playing 23+ a night or better in Josi, Subban, Ekholm, and Ellis. 
And a bit less in terms of more premium guys up front (Arviddson, Forsberg, Johannsen), but with a bit more depth in the forward group.

 

A lesser team might have a smaller core of 6. Still in the 6-8 range though.

Or their core might not be as good.

 

But I  think that’s pretty self-evident.

 

Anyway… this has turned into a Russian novel.

It has, and I can't understand why because the fact remains if this team were to get blown up his name would be at the top of the list for many reasons, whether you consider him to be "core" or not. People want to argue over the label, but that's not the issue at hand. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Tenure doesn't matter that much to me in the convo, unless you're the Senators' and retiring Chris Neil's jersey. Was he a core player?

 

Trouba is Captain, Trocheck out-produced Kreider, and Miller was 2nd in skater minutes. Are they core players?

Yes, Neil was a core player, that's why they're retiring his jersey lol. 

 

I don't know why you're throwing out other names, this is about Kreider. His role on the team and in the room, combined with his tenure combined with the fact that he wears a letter on his jersey and has for what 5 years now, make him a core player on this team. You not wanting to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. If you asked anybody in the room or in the front office they would say the same. I honestly don't know why you're even fighting this, I don't understand why this is your hill to die on... Is it because it's July?

 

The point remains that when they start dismantling this team his name will be at the top of the list. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Pete

[RangersIn7]

27 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

It has, and I can't understand why because the fact remains if this team were to get blown up his name would be at the top of the list for many reasons, whether you consider him to be "core" or not. People want to argue over the label, but that's not the issue at hand. 

 

25 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yes, Neil was a core player, that's why they're retiring his jersey lol. 

 

I don't know why you're throwing out other names, this is about Kreider. His role on the team and in the room, combined with his tenure combined with the fact that he wears a letter on his jersey and has for what 5 years now, make him a core player on this team. You not wanting to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. If you asked anybody in the room or in the front office they would say the same. I honestly don't know why you're even fighting this, I don't understand why this is your hill to die on... Is it because it's July?

 

The point remains that when they start dismantling this team his name will be at the top of the list. 

If they blew it up tomorrow, or a year from now, there would be a laundry list of teams calling and one of the 1st players they’d be asking about would be Kreider. For a host of reasons 

Cup favorite teams would have interest.
Contending  teams would have interest.

Playoff and bubble teams would have interest.

The also ran and outright rebuilding teams would have interest.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

 

 

 

Kreider is a core player.

 

Tenure might not matter. But when you talk about a guy who other guys look to and who provides leadership, his tenure here is part of the reason as to why he’s part of the leadership group and why guys look to him.

You can’t argue with Kreider’s production. Period. 
Over the past 2 seasons, 160 regular season games, Kreider has a 52 and a 36 goal season.

Thats 44 goals on average per regular season.

If you add in his 16 goals over 27 playoff games, that’s 104 goals in 187 games, in total, over 2 seasons.

That’s .556 goals per game.

Multiply that by 82. That’s the length of a season.

What do you get?

45.6.

So, yeah. He’s averaged 45 G per season over the last 2 seasons.

That’s a mathematical fact. And it’s not taken out of context.

And he has a 50+ goal season. 
And in terms of playoff production, over the last 2 seasons, he’s actually scoring at a pace for 48 goals over 82 in the playoffs last 2 seasons.

 
You’re arguing based on somantics. And it’s a losing argument. 

Core player.

 

The obvious ones. In no particular order. We’d all agree with this, and if not, sorry to say you’re just wrong.

 

1) Zibanejad 

2) Panarin 

3) Fox

4) Igor

 

Kreider makes 5. For the reasons I mentioned.

 

6) Trouba- your Captain and plays 22 minutes a night in all situations. And makes $8 million per. Production aside, those factors put him in your core. Not arguing how good he is. But he’s in your core.

7) Trochek- 20+ goals, 60+ points, 19+ minutes a night, at center, plays in all situations, key faceoff guy. And you gave him 7 years and nearly $6 million per.

Not arguing the value or merits of his contract. But he’s in your core.

 

8- Miller- Your top LHD and plays more minutes than any other LHD over past 2 seasons. Eclipsed 40 points last year. Plays all situations. Moves between top 2 pairings regularly. And he’s 23 and still improving while already occupying huge role.

 

What did I say initially?

A team’s core is 6-8 players.

3-4 forwards

2-3 D

1 starting goalie

Im not arguing the quality of this, or any core. But that’s how it’s built. Those are the guys you lean on. 

 

I don’t see what you aren’t seeing. Or how I’m off base. 
It’s like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to make yourself right by making me wrong. Which doesn’t actually work or make your point, which I don’t see.

So yes, Miller and Trochek are core players at this point.

And Trochek may have out produced CK in points. But Kreider had more than 50% more goals then him this past season.

 

You don’t have to be a “play driver” to be part of a core. 
Driving play makes you offensively elite. But it’s not a requirement to be part of a teams core and be one of that 6-8 who you heavily rely upon.

Plus, for good, bad, or neutral, when you give a guy big money and big minutes in a prominent role, you’ve anointed that player as part of your core. Whether he should be there or not… he is.

 

 

Beachemin was never a play driver. Ask the guys who played with him in Anaheim when they won their Cup in 2007 if he was a core guy.

 

Sorry man. No disrespect. But your argument lacks logic, ignores facts,  and is full of holes.

 

You keep beating that 45 goal a year drum for a player who’s scored over 40 once in 11 years, and it was clearly an outlier season. Over 30 twice. It’s really hard to stay engaged with the rest of your post when that’s at the center of your argument.

 

It’s not semantics. Maybe this is why some organizations don’t win Cups. Their view on who is a core player, who can be removed from the roster to augment what’s there, etc., stinks. Ottawa thought Chris Neil was a core player. What do they have to show for it?

 

The point is it’s a very subjective topic, but when it comes to building around a core, the more tight your view or opinion of what constitutes a core, the higher you can aim. Trouba in anyone’s core is a losing proposition. So is Trocheck. So, too, probably, is Kreider, though he’s closer than the others. Good secondary/complimentary/glue players, whatever bucket they go in.

Edited July 26, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

Ottawa thought Chris Neil was a core player. What do they have to show for it?

Aside from being one of the best teams of that era, multiple trips to the playoffs, and a trip to the finals?