Did the Rangers Make a Mistake Letting Mats Zuccarello Go?

[The Dude]

14 hours ago, Pete said:

I remember it as it happened at the time. You're remembering with hindsight. 

I said all of this when it happened. No hindsight at all. The move was bad then and it's bad now. I was dead set against it when it was going down. 

 

 

[Pete]

10 hours ago, The Dude said:

I said all of this when it happened. No hindsight at all. The move was bad then and it's bad now. I was dead set against it when it was going down. 

 

 

Yes, like we said, getting Blais back wasn't good. Moving Buch had valid reasons at the time. You're acting like there was no reason to do it, but there were a lot of reasons to do it. It just didn't work out.

 

That's really the only mark on Drury's record. 

[Sharpshooter]

It's really too bad about Blais. I don't remember who he was playing with before he had that injury, but he meshed really well and it looked like it was going to be a really good line.

[RangersIn7]

9 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

It's really too bad about Blais. I don't remember who he was playing with before he had that injury, but he meshed really well and it looked like it was going to be a really good line.

He had played with Chytil and LaFreniere 

and they looked good together

[RangersIn7]

13 hours ago, The Dude said:

I said all of this when it happened. No hindsight at all. The move was bad then and it's bad now. I was dead set against it when it was going down. 

 

 

Yeah Dude.

No one loved that trade. No one.

And rightly so. 
 

Drury fumbled that one.

But you can’t ignore the other moving parts and factors involved.

[Br4d]

When you're making deals looking at immediate impact all the time you're going to wind up with some bad mistakes a year or two down the road.

 

Almost every deal the Rangers make is looking at game one and ignoring what the picture will be two years down the road.

 

The Buch deal was an exception and having it go wrong really hurt the team.  We're working on year 3 of rentals at RW coming up and the trajectory change in the Rangers prospects mirrors that reality.

 

This franchise went from real dynasty possibilities three years ago to the third best team in their division in a hurry.

[RangersIn7]

29 minutes ago, Br4d said:

When you're making deals looking at immediate impact all the time you're going to wind up with some bad mistakes a year or two down the road.

 

Almost every deal the Rangers make is looking at game one and ignoring what the picture will be two years down the road.

 

The Buch deal was an exception and having it go wrong really hurt the team.  We're working on year 3 of rentals at RW coming up and the trajectory change in the Rangers prospects mirrors that reality.

 

This franchise went from real dynasty possibilities three years ago to the third best team in their division in a hurry.

They have a win now team and the notion that they’re far off from Devils or Canes is wrong. It’s 5 points in the standings 

They can beat both of those teams. 
 

Also, neither of those teams have Fox or Igor. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

Yeah Dude.

No one loved that trade. No one.

And rightly so. 
 

Drury fumbled that one.

But you can’t ignore the other moving parts and factors involved.

Which is basically what everybody here is doing.

 

Trading Buch was never the problem. 

 

Getting nothing back was part of the problem.

Not hitting on Kravtsov is part of the problem.

Kakko taking 4 years to become competent is part of the problem. 

 

They really should have been able to recover from losing Buch. But every other thing that could have went wrong did, and none of that is Drury's fault. 

[RangersIn7]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

Which is basically what everybody here is doing.

 

Trading Buch was never the problem. 

 

Getting nothing back was part of the problem.

Not hitting on Kravtsov is part of the problem.

Kakko taking 4 years to become competent is part of the problem. 

 

They really should have been able to recover from losing Buch. But every other thing that could have went wrong did, and none of that is Drury's fault. 

Well listen… you can’t say off of back-to-back 50-win, 100+ point seasons, that they’ve suffered greatly.

 

Theres no definitive evidence that it’s hurt them.

 And honestly, they way GG coached, do we have a Buchnevich that scores 30 goals here?

I don’t know about that.

 

Kakko has taken 4 years due to 3 things:

1) Lack of ice time and poor utilization and deployment.

2) Some injuries.

3) A pandemic 

 

Dont blame the kids.

 

Yes.

You want to see those guys force the issue.

And by and large they didn’t. 

But under GG, i question that as even a real possibility. And I think they knew that and were like, WTF, it doesn’t matter. 

He was going with the vets and who/what he liked no matter what. 

We all saw the kids do well at times, yet still get no PP time and play 14 minutes. 
I understand the logic. But you reap what you sow.

Play a guy as a young player on your 3rd line… and guess what… you yield 3rd line production. With few exceptions.

 

The needed shakeup was coaching 

[Pete]

26 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Well listen… you can’t say off of back-to-back 50-win, 100+ point seasons, that they’ve suffered greatly.

 

Theres no definitive evidence that it’s hurt them.

 And honestly, they way GG coached, do we have a Buchnevich that scores 30 goals here?

I don’t know about that.

 

Kakko has taken 4 years due to 3 things:

1) Lack of ice time and poor utilization and deployment.

2) Some injuries.

3) A pandemic 

 

Dont blame the kids.

 

Yes.

You want to see those guys force the issue.

And by and large they didn’t. 

But under GG, i question that as even a real possibility. And I think they knew that and were like, WTF, it doesn’t matter. 

He was going with the vets and who/what he liked no matter what. 

We all saw the kids do well at times, yet still get no PP time and play 14 minutes. 
I understand the logic. But you reap what you sow.

Play a guy as a young player on your 3rd line… and guess what… you yield 3rd line production. With few exceptions.

 

The needed shakeup was coaching 

It's not about blame, it's about the fact of the matter being they struck out on 2 top 10 picks at RW. That is harder to recover from than trading Buch. 

[RangersIn7]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

It's not about blame, it's about the fact of the matter being they struck out on 2 top 10 picks at RW. That is harder to recover from than trading Buch. 

They struck out on 1.

Kakko is a good player and I believe will improve into a very good to great player.

Best hockey in front of him and there’s way more good than bad there. 

Everyone needs to drop that narrative on Kakko. Cause it’s misleading and it clouds what you have vs what you thought you should have and still may get. 

Kid is a hockey player I want moving forward.

 

Kravtsov is a huge miss though.

Wahlstrom was the pick. 
They picked the wrong guy.

Then they didn’t handle him properly.

And he did himself no favors.

[Pete]

37 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Everyone needs to drop that narrative on Kakko. Cause it’s misleading and it clouds what you have vs what you thought you should have and still may get. 

Kid is a hockey player I want moving forward.

None of this is the point though. You have to look beyond defending the player into the fact that they thought they were getting an eventual point per game player, and one who was ready to step into the league immediately.

 

That's not what happened. 

[Br4d]

Lafreniere has a much better chance of turning into a point per 18 minutes played at 5v5 than Kakko does.

 

That's not saying that Kakko is a bad prospect because he's a good one but the guy who could actually turn into a top line scorer is Lafreniere.  However there are possibly still roadblocks in the way so we may wind up with a guy with .8 pts per 15 minutes instead.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

Lafreniere has a much better chance of turning into a point per 18 minutes played at 5v5 than Kakko does.

 

That's not saying that Kakko is a bad prospect because he's a good one but the guy who could actually turn into a top line scorer is Lafreniere.  However there are possibly still roadblocks in the way so we may wind up with a guy with .8 pts per 15 minutes instead.

This is a completely random comment. Totally impossible to say without knowing who's going to be playing with who.

 

Although I keep asking where you get this stuff from, because a lot of it just feels made up and I would love to know what you're basing it on but I never get a response. 

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

This is a completely random comment. Totally impossible to say without knowing who's going to be playing with who.

 

Although I keep asking where you get this stuff from, because a lot of it just feels made up and I would love to know what you're basing it on but I never get a response. 

 

I get it as a long-time student of professional sports and the Rangers in particular.

 

Lafreniere has been better than Kakko at each successive age level.  He's got a better skillset than Kakko does to really succeed in the NHL and he has a better hockey IQ.

 

Also, if you really watched the stuff on him in juniors you'd know that what he's missing is a good scorer to feed and to create opportunities in front for him.  That's what he does: he feeds people and then cleans up off of the chaos in front.

 

He's also a real opportunist.  People keep talking about the garbage goals he gets when he takes the puck from behind the net and walks it out in front and then scores over a sprawled goalie.  That's not garbage.  That's knowing where to be and then what to do when you get there.

 

He's the guy of the three kids who might turn into a 40 goal 60 assist player.  He's got the chops he just needs the opportunity and the right partners.

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I get it as a long-time student of professional sports and the Rangers in particular.

 

Lafreniere has been better than Kakko at each successive age level.  He's got a better skillset than Kakko does to really succeed in the NHL and he has a better hockey IQ.

 

Also, if you really watched the stuff on him in juniors you'd know that what he's missing is a good scorer to feed and to create opportunities in front for him.  That's what he does: he feeds people and then cleans up off of the chaos in front.

 

He's also a real opportunist.  People keep talking about the garbage goals he gets when he takes the puck from behind the net and walks it out in front and then scores over a sprawled goalie.  That's not garbage.  That's knowing where to be and then what to do when you get there.

 

He's the guy of the three kids who might turn into a 40 goal 60 assist player.  He's got the chops he just needs the opportunity and the right partners.

So it is made up, got it. 

 

I have this feeling that after Laugh flames out of the league you'll still be talking about how he could have been 100 point player and it was everybody else's fault that he didn't get there. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Pete

[Br4d]

If you think Lafreniere is flaming out of the NHL it shows how little you understand talent.

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, Br4d said:

If you think Lafreniere is flaming out of the NHL it shows how little you understand talent.

If you think he's going to be 100 point player it shows how little you understand work ethic. 

[BrooksBurner]

Love a little free entertainment at night

 

[Scott]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

If you think he's going to be 100 point player it shows how little you understand work ethic. 

I would of thought the very basics of having a high hockey IQ at this level included having one of those as a starting point?  

[The Dude]

13 hours ago, Pete said:

Yes, like we said, getting Blais back wasn't good. Moving Buch had valid reasons at the time. You're acting like there was no reason to do it, but there were a lot of reasons to do it. It just didn't work out.

 

That's really the only mark on Drury's record. 

There were no good reasons to do it. There was no reason to do it. 

 

What are the reasons you speak of? What you've brought so far aren't good enough and your description of the player was inaccurate. Buchnevich was and is a perfect fit for this team. Both now and when Drury couldn't wait to get rid of him. 

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

There were no good reasons to do it. There was no reason to do it. 

 

What are the reasons you speak of? What you've brought so far aren't good enough and your description of the player was inaccurate. Buchnevich was and is a perfect fit for this team. Both now and when Drury couldn't wait to get rid of him. 

This has already been litigated 1,000 times. It's been litigated in this thread. I'm not going to keep posting the same reasons that I already posted. 

 

We don't have to agree. 

[The Dude]

10 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

Yeah Dude.

No one loved that trade. No one.

And rightly so. 
 

Drury fumbled that one.

But you can’t ignore the other moving parts and factors involved.

 

I can ignore them, because the factors are based on hearsay, rumors and a general love affair for the GM.  

 

There were no moving parts. There was no reason to do what they did that summer, besides fire Quinn. Goodrow and Nemeth were not necessary.  Buchnevich was. 

 

People over quantify the need for Goodrow tyoes. We ALWAYS do with such players. He's a 4th liner. He can slide up the roster here and there. He's not their top PKer. He doesn't take important draws. He isn't used in a shut down role. He's a 4th liner. Dime a dozen. They thought they poached some integral piece from Tampa. They got a guy they tried to dump this summer after his 2nd year into his 6 frikken year contract. 

 

 

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

I get it as a long-time student of professional sports and the Rangers in particular.

 

Lafreniere has been better than Kakko at each successive age level.  He's got a better skillset than Kakko does to really succeed in the NHL and he has a better hockey IQ.

 

Also, if you really watched the stuff on him in juniors you'd know that what he's missing is a good scorer to feed and to create opportunities in front for him.  That's what he does: he feeds people and then cleans up off of the chaos in front.

 

He's also a real opportunist.  People keep talking about the garbage goals he gets when he takes the puck from behind the net and walks it out in front and then scores over a sprawled goalie.  That's not garbage.  That's knowing where to be and then what to do when you get there.

 

He's the guy of the three kids who might turn into a 40 goal 60 assist player.  He's got the chops he just needs the opportunity and the right partners.

 

You use the same words about this kid every time.  Opportunistic being the one you use the most. Did you lift that from some old scouting report?  He is the LEAST opportunistic of the 3 "kids".

 

He doesn't have the strength, the guts or the competency to be a guy that gets to loose pucks to BE opportunistic.

 

He doesn't have the puck skills to dangle from behind the net to floor a goalie.  He's hardly ever in a good spot down low or, behind the goalie with the puck.. For a guy that was touted as a set up guy, he has terrible instincts and vision. It's like he built his Jr career on one play, which relied more on his linemates going to the net for tap ins. That's a majority of the Jr highlights you love to fall back on. 

 

Atleast Kakko has a good hard shot that he doesn't use enough. He's got great puck skills. Can dangle and keep the puck glued to his stick in any situation. He goes down low and in the corners as well as to the middle of the ice when he has the puck. He's good defensively. 

 

Kakko has the better skillet and is more close to being a competent top 6 forward at this point.  

 

 

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

7 hours ago, The Dude said:

 

You use the same words about this kid every time.  Opportunistic being the one you use the most. Did you lift that from some old scouting report?  He is the LEAST opportunistic of the 3 "kids".

 

He doesn't have the strength, the guts or the competency to be a guy that gets to loose pucks to BE opportunistic.

 

He doesn't have the puck skills to dangle from behind the net to floor a goalie.  He's hardly ever in a good spot down low or, behind the goalie with the puck.. For a guy that was touted as a set up guy, he has terrible instincts and vision. It's like he built his Jr career on one play, which relied more on his linemates going to the net for tap ins. That's a majority of the Jr highlights you love to fall back on. 

 

Atleast Kakko has a good hard shot that he doesn't use enough. He's got great puck skills. Can dangle and keep the puck glued to his stick in any situation. He goes down low and in the corners as well as to the middle of the ice when he has the puck. He's good defensively. 

 

Kakko has the better skillet and is more close to being a competent top 6 forward at this point.  

 

 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment above, but who are these elite finishers that he played with in juniors?