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

[RangersIn7]

20 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

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.

Well it’s a mathematical fact that over the past two seasons, by any way you cut it up, he’s given them exactly that.

And it’s not the kind of outlier you think.

He had 52, then 36.

Not 65 and 23. 
He’d knocked on the door of 30 goals a few times prior already. 

 

Whether you view him as that “type” of player is what’s subjective. That he’s produced at that rate is not. And I never said he was that perennially, just over the last 2 seasons.

And even if he’s not “that player”:

 

1) He’s still now an established 35-goal guy as he’s done it 2x’s, and in consecutive seasons.

2) A 35-goal guy is a top-6 forward pretty much everywhere.

3) That level of production over multiple seasons, plus 6 other seasons over 20 goals, and his leadership, prominence and yes, his tenure on the team, clearly make him a core piece. 
 

And when they handed him a 7 year deal for over $45 million, they said that.

 

Now I don’t think he’ll score 50+ again.

But at this point I think we all expect around 35. And if he had 40, I don’t think anyone would be shocked. 
 

Trouba is a core guy too bro.

You brought him in. Paid him top dollar. And you placed him at the top of your D pairings. Before you knew what Fox would be. And then you made him your captain off a run to the ECF.

 

These aren’t really subjective points one can argue.

 

You want to say that Trouba doesn’t belong there, or that he’s overpaid, or whatever, sure. I get that.

Doesnt change the fact that he’s there. 

[SaveByRichter35]

I agree that Kreider is no doubt a part of the teams core, if not, the core.  It doesn't have to solely do with skill.  He is not the most important player on the team, nor the most skilled, but he is in the middle of everything.  He skates in all situations.  He is among the team leadership.  He is the longest tenured.  He is a part of the heartbeat of this franchise.  In my opinion the core should literally start with Trouba, only because he is the captain.

Trouba

Kreider

Zib

Fox

Panarin

Lindgren

 

Honestly I don't even consider Igor as part of the actual core even though he is probably singularly the most important player on the team. 

[The Dude]

15 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

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.

They gave the guy a long term contract and I'd venture to guess he played the most minutes of any D men in his tenure here. Probably should have been captain and was the identity of those teams style of play. 

 

Girardi was absolutely a core guy. Just as Kreider is. These are backbone players. They run the locker-room and they are the ones players and media go to first. 

[BrooksBurner]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

They gave the guy a long term contract and I'd venture to guess he played the most minutes of any D men in his tenure here. Probably should have been captain and was the identity of those teams style of play. 

 

Girardi was absolutely a core guy. Just as Kreider is. These are backbone players. They run the locker-room and they are the ones players and media go to first. 

I didn’t say the Rangers didn’t view him as such. I said I didn’t.

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

I didn’t say the Rangers didn’t view him as such. I said I didn’t.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Nothing. It’s a difference of opinion so I let it go. I think the Rangers viewed Girardi as core, but I stand by that they shouldn’t have. It’s the same with Kreider.

 

I’ve seen Trouba, Trocheck, Lindgren, and Miller included as part of the core from various posters, and I don’t think any of those guys should be viewed as such. Lindgren is in that Girardi bucket. Miller isn’t there, but could get there someday. From the Rangers’ point of view, though, there’s no question they think that highly of Trouba or he wouldn’t be Captain. I don’t like him as Captain either. Never have.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Bingo, we go roundabout on the topic of who would be moved out in the event the team fell flat on their face, Kreider would absolutely be at the top of the list.

 

But we spend 2 days arguing "core" just to get to "well of course the Rangers see him as core, I just don't"... Which totally makes sense when discussing what the team would do. 

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

15 minutes ago, Pete said:

Bingo, we go roundabout on the topic of who would be moved out in the event the team fell flat on their face, Kreider would absolutely be at the top of the list.

 

But we spend 2 days arguing "core" just to get to "well of course the Rangers see him as core, I just don't"... Which totally makes sense when discussing what the team would do. 

 

I never said Kreider wouldn’t get moved. Kreider would get moved because they wouldn’t need a complimentary piece anymore, and he’s a really good complimentary piece, but that in and of itself doesn’t reshape the roster how it would need to be reshaped. Reshaping only happens if one or more of the real core four is moved. Otherwise you’re just augmenting with other complimentary players.

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I never said Kreider wouldn’t get moved. Kreider would get moved because they wouldn’t need a complimentary piece anymore, and he’s a really good complimentary piece, but that in and of itself doesn’t reshape the roster how it would need to be reshaped. Reshaping only happens if one or more of the real core four is moved. Otherwise you’re just augmenting with other complimentary players.

You're missing the point of tearing it down from a culture perspective, but I've wasted enough time on this.

 

Bottom line is the Rangers see him as a core player. If they want impactful change, he needs to be one of the first, if not THE first to go. Both for what you can get for him, and the message it sends. Hard stop. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Pete

[RangersIn7]

We should put this one to bed before the Quaker Oats guy converts to Judaism

[BrooksBurner]

19 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're missing the point of tearing it down from a culture perspective, but I've wasted enough time on this.

 

Bottom line is the Rangers see him as a core player. If they want impactful change, he needs to be one of the first, if not THE first to go. Both for what you can get for him, and the message it sends. Hard stop. 

 

He or Trouba would be the first to go simply because their contract statuses allow it. That's not because it nukes the roster. It's because it's easy and more available. If that's all they do, all they've done is augment around the <don't use core here, don't use core here> clear cut 4 best players on the team to give it another go with different complimentary players around them. It's not a big enough change by itself and you've said so yourself.

[Pete]

58 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

He or Trouba would be the first to go simply because their contract statuses allow it. That's not because it nukes the roster. It's because it's easy and more available. If that's all they do, all they've done is augment around the <don't use core here, don't use core here> clear cut 4 best players on the team to give it another go with different complimentary players around them. It's not a big enough change by itself and you've said so yourself.

Right. The older members of the core, and those it makes sense to move because "why keep?" should go.

 

Krieder

Panarin

Trouba

Shesterkin, Goody, possibly Lindgren, etc are all "why keep?" if you're rebuilding.

 

Depending on what Zib does, maybe him too. But #1 centers aren't dime a dozen and Trocheck and Chytil ain't it.

 

Of course you keep Fox, Miller, the kids, and then you bring up the Othmann's and Sykoras of the world. Maybe keep Vesey as a warm body, and cautionary tale (you've never as good as you think you are, and you can go from prize FA to 4th liner in 3 short years.)

 

Let Perrault cook in the AHL so he doesn't have to be subjected to all the losing, and scrubs who can't convert his passes.

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Pete

[RJWantsTheCup]

I loved Girardi right up to his game 1 giveaway in the finals.  Man did he have a rough finals series.

[jsm7302]

3 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

I loved Girardi right up to his game 1 giveaway in the finals.  Man did he have a rough finals series.

Recency bias....but I have the same feeling about Fox with his R1 Game 7 performance. 

[RJWantsTheCup]

Just now, jsm7302 said:

Recency bias....but I have the same feeling about Fox with his R1 Game 7 performance. 

Girardi in the finals was much worse.  He was a very steady player in his career up until that point.

[RangersIn7]

If they blew it up, the prominent guys with less term and money remaining would be the first to go…

 

Namely Trouba, Kreider, Panarin, and Igor.

 

[SaveByRichter35]

The miscommunication here is that @BrooksBurner seems to have a different opinion, when compared to pretty much everyone else, about what constitutes a core player.  Think back to the late 00's Yankees.  The "Core Four" were Jeter, Pettitte, Mariano, and Jorge.  At that point, by no means were they the best 4 players of the team.  They were the 4 longest tenured players and the last ones remaining from their dynasty.  They were the heartbeat of the franchise.  You had better players on the roster, but those 4 were the core of the team.  @BrooksBurner just seems to think the core is automatically the best handful of players on the team.

[The Dude]

6 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

Nothing. It’s a difference of opinion so I let it go. I think the Rangers viewed Girardi as core, but I stand by that they shouldn’t have. It’s the same with Kreider.

 

I’ve seen Trouba, Trocheck, Lindgren, and Miller included as part of the core from various posters, and I don’t think any of those guys should be viewed as such. Lindgren is in that Girardi bucket. Miller isn’t there, but could get there someday. From the Rangers’ point of view, though, there’s no question they think that highly of Trouba or he wouldn’t be Captain. I don’t like him as Captain either. Never have.

Lmao, I am letting it go. The GIF was meant in a joking way. As if to say, ok, so thats over.

 

The difference in opinion on what constitutes what,  can't be agreed on. You see things differently and so what. 

 

I think we agree that no matter what, if this coming season is a disaster,  mostly everyone should go. Zib, Panarin, Trouba, Kreider, Trocheck, Lafreniere, Kakko, maybe Lindgren and Fox. Miller too. Not even to the studs. Burn it down. Start over. 

 

I feel, Kreider going first would shake the foundation. You think hes pretty much JAG. We disagree.  Ah well.  It's not a quantifiable outcome if it were to happen.  It was just a discussion of a "what if" scenario.  Hopefully it doesn't even have to come to that. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by The Dude

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Girardi in the finals was much worse.  He was a very steady player in his career up until that point.

He had nothing left in the tank. He played way too much and was just done. It was clear right then and there. 

 

It's a habit the Rangers haven't shook for years. They run their D men into the ground.  These guys need nights off for maintenance and rest. All of em. Fox, Miller, Trouba, Lindgren. They each need breaks. 

[BrooksBurner]

28 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Lmao, I am letting it go. The GIF was meant in a joking way. As if to say, ok, so thats over.

 

The difference in opinion on what constitutes what,  can't be agreed on. You see things differently and so what. 

 

I think we agree that no matter what, if this coming season is a disaster,  mostly everyone should go. Zib, Panarin, Trouba, Kreider, Trocheck, Lafreniere, Kakko, maybe Lindgren and Fox. Miller too. Not even to the studs. Burn it down. Start over. 

 

I feel, Kreider going first would shake the foundation. You think hes pretty much JAG. We disagree.  Ah well.  It's not a quantifiable outcome if it were to happen.  It was just a discussion of a "what if" scenario.  Hopefully it doesn't even have to come to that. 

 

I was just saying I let it go. I wasn't telling you to, if that's how you interpreted it.

 

I don't think Kreider is JAG at all, for clarity. I'm not the one who has ripped him incessantly for years (that's not implying you have, but many here have). It's not like anyone who isn't a core player is JAG.

[BrooksBurner]

4 hours ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

The miscommunication here is that @BrooksBurner seems to have a different opinion, when compared to pretty much everyone else, about what constitutes a core player.  Think back to the late 00's Yankees.  The "Core Four" were Jeter, Pettitte, Mariano, and Jorge.  At that point, by no means were they the best 4 players of the team.  They were the 4 longest tenured players and the last ones remaining from their dynasty.  They were the heartbeat of the franchise.  You had better players on the roster, but those 4 were the core of the team.  @BrooksBurner just seems to think the core is automatically the best handful of players on the team.

 

I don't know about that. My opinion of how narrow a core should be is different, absolutely, but it's not like everyone else is on the same page here. I recognize not including Kreider is controversial, but I think including Lindgren, Trocheck, or Miller is equivalently controversial in the other direction. Way too loose.

 

I heavily weight towards the best players, yes, but I am more open than that and consider a variety of other things. Playoff performance and success is really up there in terms of pushing up "lesser" players up into the conversation.

In terms of the Yankees example, I think we both know Jeter and Mariano were the best players on the team and among the best players at their positions to ever play the game. Posada was one of the best catchers during that era. Numerous all star appearances. I don't think there's an argument there with those three being at the top of the team. I would actually agree that Pettitte is/was veeeerrryyy similar to Kreider. Solid player, but the Yankees had multiple pitchers come through that had better seasons than him during the dynasty years. What he had, though, were numerous clutch playoff performances that led to championships. Without those, he's most likely not looked at as a core piece from that era at all. But he did win a championship. Multiple. And he did have clutch playoff performances. Multiple. Winning a single championship changes worth, value, and perception. Winning multiple championships locks it in. The Rangers are a loser franchise we are stuck with, so I think we are just accustomed to bargaining for less.

 

The funny part here is we are talking about a guy who probably more than half the fan base, and definitely more than half the board here, wanted to trade or let go instead of re-sign him because he was "invisible way too much" or just not that important to the team. Sound like a core player to you? He's a leader, except he's been here forever and got passed over for Captain when he should have been a shoo-in based on tenure and this supposed leadership acumen almost everyone is raving about in this thread. The same franchise where everyone is also saying there's a lack of leadership. So maybe he's not that good of a leader either. What he is, is a fucking awesome complementary player. You got guys like that to complement the core, you can win championships. Multiple. The Rangers' "core four" just hasn't gotten it done.

Edited July 28, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

But here's the point, it doesn't matter who you think is a core player, it matters who the Rangers think is a core player. That's the topic of conversation, who would get moved out based on what criteria, and you don't make those decisions but the Rangers do.

 

So frankly, why do we care who you think is a core player? 

[BrooksBurner]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

But here's the point, it doesn't matter who you think is a core player, it matters who the Rangers think is a core player. That's the topic of conversation, who would get moved out based on what criteria, and you don't make those decisions but the Rangers do.

 

So frankly, why do we care who you think is a core player? 

 

The conversation evolved. You decided to chase my comment that Kreider isn't a core player. So I guess the better question is why did you care?

 

Why do we care what you think the lines should be? Or who the coach should be? It's a message board for fans dood. The whole purpose is to share opinions about the team. It's not like the Rangers have been run by guys with a bastion of successful views on building a roster, so I mean if you want to be boring and get everyone to fall in line with what the team does, have at it.

Edited July 28, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[SaveByRichter35]

33 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I don't know about that. My opinion of how narrow a core should be is different, absolutely, but it's not like everyone else is on the same page here. I recognize not including Kreider is controversial, but I think including Lindgren, Trocheck, or Miller is equivalently controversial in the other direction. Way too loose.

 

I heavily weight towards the best players, yes, but I am more open than that and consider a variety of other things. Playoff performance and success is really up there in terms of pushing up "lesser" players up into the conversation.

In terms of the Yankees example, I think we both know Jeter and Mariano were the best players on the team and among the best players at their positions to ever play the game. Posada was one of the best catchers during that era. Numerous all star appearances. I don't think there's an argument there with those three being at the top of the team. I would actually agree that Pettitte is/was veeeerrryyy similar to Kreider. Solid player, but the Yankees had multiple pitchers come through that had better seasons than him during the dynasty years. What he had, though, were numerous clutch playoff performances that led to championships. Without those, he's most likely not looked at as a core piece from that era at all. But he did win a championship. Multiple. And he did have clutch playoff performances. Multiple. Winning a single championship changes worth, value, and perception. Winning multiple championships locks it in. The Rangers are a loser franchise we are stuck with, so I think we are just accustomed to bargaining for less.

 

The funny part here is we are talking about a guy who probably more than half the fan base, and definitely more than half the board here, wanted to trade or let go instead of re-sign him because he was "invisible way too much" or just not that important to the team. Sound like a core player to you? He's a leader, except he's been here forever and got passed over for Captain when he should have been a shoo-in based on tenure and this supposed leadership acumen almost everyone is raving about in this thread. The same franchise where everyone is also saying there's a lack of leadership. So maybe he's not that good of a leader either. What he is, is a fucking awesome complementary player. You got guys like that to complement the core, you can win championships. Multiple. The Rangers' "core four" just hasn't gotten it done.

Regarding the Yankee comparison, I said the late 00s Yankees.  When those 4 were the only 4 left and in the twilight of their careers.  Yes, obviously they were superstars in their primes through their dynasty run.  But at the end they were no longer the best players on the team.  Semantics, whatever.  

[Pete]

24 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

The conversation evolved. You decided to chase my comment that Kreider isn't a core player. So I guess the better question is why did you care?

 

Why do we care what you think the lines should be? Or who the coach should be? It's a message board for fans dood. The whole purpose is to share opinions about the team. It's not like the Rangers have been run by guys with a bastion of successful views on building a roster, so I mean if you want to be boring and get everyone to fall in line with what the team does, have at it.

The conversation was moving out core players... You decide to argue who was core and who wasn't. First of all, that's not the point, and second of all Kreider would be out anyway.

 

The answer to "why do I care about your comment" is, I shouldn't have. You're incorrect, and I shouldn't have given it any air.