2024 Off-season Thread: Burn in Effigy

[RJWantsTheCup]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

You can only make the deal that's there. The deals weren't there for him, I'm sure. 

 

You also can't just keep selling all your assets at the deadline. The Rangers don't have a 2nd until 2027 and a 3rd until 2026. You can't trade what you don't have, and you also can't keep trading what you do have.  

Who knows what was actually available for Drury, but they only traded pics to get Roslovic & Wennberg.  I would've taken Tatar over Roslovic.  Duclair and Henrique would've been better options.  Vatrano was possibly available.   There definetly were better options out there.  Maybe they wanted more from the Rangers than what they were traded for.  

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Who knows what was actually available for Drury, but they only traded pics to get Roslovic & Wennberg.  I would've taken Tatar over Roslovic.  Duclair and Henrique would've been better options.  Vatrano was possibly available.   There definetly were better options out there.  Maybe they wanted more from the Rangers than what they were traded for.  

Henrique is currently on the Oilers fourth line and has four points in the playoffs, he's been injured and scratched. 

 

Duclair finished with 2A and -3 in 5 games for Tampa.

 

I'm sure Drury would have loved to add more than he did, but the prices were high and he didn't want to give up value for rentals. 

 

When they start tearing this thing down in 2 years, people are going to be complaining that they don't have any draft capital or young players in the pipeline, heck people are already complaining that we don't have enough players in the pipeline. 

 

There are some people who said all season that the team wasn't good enough to win a championship and then also complained that we didn't get enough at the deadline.... Well which one is it, if the team's not good enough then why are we giving up tons at the deadline? 

 

No matter what happens, you can't please everybody. 

[BrooksBurner]

29 minutes ago, Pete said:

Henrique is currently on the Oilers fourth line and has four points in the playoffs, he's been injured and scratched. 

 

Duclair finished with 2A and -3 in 5 games for Tampa.

 

I'm sure Drury would have loved to add more than he did, but the prices were high and he didn't want to give up value for rentals. 

 

When they start tearing this thing down in 2 years, people are going to be complaining that they don't have any draft capital or young players in the pipeline, heck people are already complaining that we don't have enough players in the pipeline. 

 

There are some people who said all season that the team wasn't good enough to win a championship and then also complained that we didn't get enough at the deadline.... Well which one is it, if the team's not good enough then why are we giving up tons at the deadline? 

 

No matter what happens, you can't please everybody. 

 

I think Drury has been caught with a foot in opposite directions. His trade deadline this year is representative of that. It seemed like he was trying to please those who were gungho about the team (hey look I made a couple of depth moves!), and those who thought the team had glaring warts (hey, look I only spent a 2 and a 4!). It was the perfect deadline to not make anyone upset.

 

I'm just hoping the reasoning behind it was that he and whatever analytics team the Rangers have, saw the same stats that the skeptical fans saw, which surfaced in spades in the ECF, and that was why he ultimately chose to go cheap rather than go all in. If so, I think we are in for a wild ride this offseason.

[RJWantsTheCup]

11 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I think Drury has been caught with a foot in opposite directions. His trade deadline this year is representative of that. It seemed like he was trying to please those who were gungho about the team (hey look I made a couple of depth moves!), and those who thought the team had glaring warts (hey, look I only spent a 2 and a 4!). It was the perfect deadline to not make anyone upset.

 

I'm just hoping the reasoning behind it was that he and whatever analytics team the Rangers have, saw the same stats that the skeptical fans saw, which surfaced in spades in the ECF, and that was why he ultimately chose to go cheap rather than go all in. If so, I think we are in for a wild ride this offseason.

You only get so many kicks at the can so to speak.  This year they had a pretty good chance.  Doesn't make much sense not to go totally all in.  Now they didn't win and they have to figure out what they are going to do with the most important player on the team in Shesterkin.  So they possibly whiffed on this season's opportunity and future year's possibility.  Have to take chances to win when they are there.  Too many variables in hockey to wait and see.

[Pete]

16 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I think Drury has been caught with a foot in opposite directions. His trade deadline this year is representative of that. It seemed like he was trying to please those who were gungho about the team (hey look I made a couple of depth moves!), and those who thought the team had glaring warts (hey, look I only spent a 2 and a 4!). It was the perfect deadline to not make anyone upset.

 

I'm just hoping the reasoning behind it was that he and whatever analytics team the Rangers have, saw the same stats that the skeptical fans saw, which surfaced in spades in the ECF, and that was why he ultimately chose to go cheap rather than go all in. If so, I think we are in for a wild ride this offseason.

GMs don't make decisions based on what fans think.

[BrooksBurner]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

GMs don't make decisions based on what fans think.

 

I don't think that's always true. We talk about external media pressure and it's effects on decision making. Who absorbs the media? The fans.

 

Anyway, it wasn't necessarily fans I was insinuating. I don't see why the feedback internally from within the club couldn't have been a split decision about what to do.

Edited June 12 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I don't think that's always true. We talk about external media pressure and it's effects on decision making. Who absorbs the media? The fans.

 

Anyway, it wasn't necessarily fans I was insinuating. I don't see why the feedback internally from within the club couldn't have been a split decision about what to do.

Or... Hear me out... He made the best deals available to him given what he had the ability and willingness to give up...

 

Any GM that's making decisions based on fan feedback should be fired immediately.

[BrooksBurner]

7 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

You only get so many kicks at the can so to speak.  This year they had a pretty good chance.  Doesn't make much sense not to go totally all in.  Now they didn't win and they have to figure out what they are going to do with the most important player on the team in Shesterkin.  So they possibly whiffed on this season's opportunity and future year's possibility.  Have to take chances to win when they are there.  Too many variables in hockey to wait and see.

 

Right and this is the point. They had a death clutch on their 1st round pick this year? Henrique wasn't a better option than Wennberg? Monahan wasn't a better option? We can sit here in hindsight and say neither of those guys did much, but that is besides the point. They were better options and they may have done better here than elsewhere. He passed up giving FUTURES for a team that was supposedly win now all-in quality. Even if we entertain this wild notion that Dolan strong armed Drury to keep the 1st round pick "for the Sphere in Vegas", there's next year's 1st rounder too.

 

Additionally, there's Perreault and there's Othmann. They could have beat Carolina's offer for Guentzel if they wanted to with one of these prospects, but they didn't. If I'm GM and I strongly believe my roster is right there to win a Cup and I have a massive hole on the right side, I don't care about what Othmann or Perreault does in 5 years if there's a chance to add a 40 goal winger to win a Cup. I always get told that GMs of competitive teams only operate in the present, and don't worry about 5 years from now, so why is Drury prospect-and 1st round pick-clutching?

 

Actions always speak louder than words.

[Phil]

16 hours ago, Pete said:

I know it's popular to shit on everything the Rangers do and act like we could have done it better, but Shesterkin had arbitration rights and there are 2 parties negotiating here. It could be he didn't want the long term deal because he wanted one more crack at a UFA contract. The Rangers didn't have all the leverage. He also had some injury issues and didn't have the biggest body of work at the time.

 

It's not always that the Rangers "never think" or always do it wrong. 

 

Yup. And hindsight is always 20/20. It's always easy to look back and say "man, they should have done X," but X might not have actually been an option at the time. The player and his agent agreed to this deal, so for all we know, this could have been the best offer available to him.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Right and this is the point. They had a death clutch on their 1st round pick this year? Henrique wasn't a better option than Wennberg? Monahan wasn't a better option? We can sit here in hindsight and say neither of those guys did much, but that is besides the point. They were better options and they may have done better here than elsewhere. He passed up giving FUTURES for a team that was supposedly win now all-in quality. Even if we entertain this wild notion that Dolan strong armed Drury to keep the 1st round pick "for the Sphere in Vegas", there's next year's 1st rounder too.

 

Additionally, there's Perreault and there's Othmann. They could have beat Carolina's offer for Guentzel if they wanted to with one of these prospects, but they didn't. If I'm GM and I strongly believe my roster is right there to win a Cup and I have a massive hole on the right side, I don't care about what Othmann or Perreault does in 5 years if there's a chance to add a 40 goal winger to win a Cup. I always get told that GMs of competitive teams only operate in the present, and don't worry about 5 years from now, so why is Drury prospect-and 1st round pick-clutching?

 

Actions always speak louder than words.

It takes two teams to make a deal. What if teams weren't interested in next year's first? Is it really that hard to believe that the team on the other side took what they thought was the best offer, and it wasn't the Rangers offer?

 

There's just so many assumptions going on here that are treated as fact and then used to fuel an argument. 

 

All of this is speculation. Sitting here saying they must not have believed in the team, when there were many articles written after exit interviews that said top to bottom this organization did think this team was good enough to win. 

 

I just have no interest in dealing with conspiracy theory. 

Edited June 12 by Pete

[RangersIn7]

26 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

You only get so many kicks at the can so to speak.  This year they had a pretty good chance.  Doesn't make much sense not to go totally all in.  Now they didn't win and they have to figure out what they are going to do with the most important player on the team in Shesterkin.  So they possibly whiffed on this season's opportunity and future year's possibility.  Have to take chances to win when they are there.  Too many variables in hockey to wait and see.

They got beat by a team that was the only team in their Conference that could have beaten them.

A team that is highly likely to be the eventual champion this season.

 

And talk all the stats you want- traditional, analytics, etc…. All close games.

 

A bounce here.. a bounce there.. it could have been different. 
 

They’re close.

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

It takes two teams to make a deal. What if teams weren't interested in next year's first? Is it really that hard to believe that the team on the other side took what they thought was the best offer, and it wasn't the Rangers offer?

 

There's just so many assumptions going on here that are treated as fact and then used to fuel an argument. 

 

All of this is speculation. Sitting here saying they must not have believed in the team, when there were many articles written after exit interviews that said top to bottom this organization did think this team was good enough to win. 

 

I just have no interest in dealing with conspiracy theory. 

 

Ok. So I can mark you down for Pittsburgh would have rejected a 1st and Perreault for Guentzel?

 

Sounds to me like you don't have a quality counterpoint that Drury simply chose not to pony up for anything of quality this past deadline. If he wanted to pony up, he could have. He chose not to. Smartly, I might add, but the choice runs counter to this idea that a team without a 1st line right winger was the team to beat, or that they were close. They weren't really that close.

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Ok. So I can mark you down for Pittsburgh would have rejected a 1st and Perreault for Guentzel?

 

Sounds to me like you don't have a quality counterpoint that Drury simply chose not to pony up for anything of quality this past deadline. If he wanted to pony up, he could have. He chose not to. Smartly, I might add, but the choice runs counter to this idea that a team without a 1st line right winger was the team to beat, or that they were close. They weren't really that close.

You can mark me down as completely disagreeing with everything in this post. 

 

A team that goes six and loses every game by one goal without a right wing and third line center certainly is very close. Go add a right wing and a center and take a crack at it next season. You're literally making the argument that they in fact are close. 

 

And you can also mark me down for not wanting to waste more time on it, because neither one of us are going to change the other ones mind.

Edited June 12 by Pete

[LindG1000]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Ok. So I can mark you down for Pittsburgh would have rejected a 1st and Perreault for Guentzel?

 

Sounds to me like you don't have a quality counterpoint that Drury simply chose not to pony up for anything of quality this past deadline. If he wanted to pony up, he could have. He chose not to. Smartly, I might add, but the choice runs counter to this idea that a team without a 1st line right winger was the team to beat, or that they were close. They weren't really that close.

 

I'm so lost on your argument here. You're arguing that Pete's got no answer for Drury choosing not to pony up, and at the same time arguing that Drury was right not to. 

 

I gotta ask - are you just bored at work and hoping for an argument? 

 

 

 

[Pete]

Just now, LindG1000 said:

 

I'm so lost on your argument here. You're arguing that Pete's got no answer for Drury choosing not to pony up, and at the same time arguing that Drury was right not to. 

 

I gotta ask - are you just bored at work and hoping for an argument? 

 

 

 

Everything is based on speculation. Nobody really knows what Pittsburgh asked for. If it was a first + Perrault + Othmann for rental then that's a hard no from most GMs. Carolina certainly didn't give up anything near that, nor would they have. 

 

What's happening is that a palatable package is being pulled from thin air, and then combined with "and then Drury didn't want to give it up, so that means he didn't have faith in the team." 

 

It's all about fueling a certain narrative. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I'm so lost on your argument here. You're arguing that Pete's got no answer for Drury choosing not to pony up, and at the same time arguing that Drury was right not to. 

 

I gotta ask - are you just bored at work and hoping for an argument? 

 

 

 

 

Nah. I don't believe you. You are not lost on the argument. You're just here for moral support 

[LindG1000]

Just now, Pete said:

Everything is based on speculation. Nobody really knows what Pittsburgh asked for. If it was a first + Perrault + Othmann for rental then that's a hard no from most GMs. Carolina certainly didn't give up anything near that, nor would they have. 

 

What's happening is that a palatable package is being pulled from thin air, and then combined with "and then Drury didn't want to give it up, so that means he didn't have faith in the team." 

 

It's all about fueling a certain narrative. 

 

I'll say, for my piece - I'd have wanted absolutely no part of either of those two going to Pittsburgh. I'm not opposed to dealing Othmann, but not to fucking Pittsburgh. You live with that decision for 5 games and playoffs for a decade, not just once or twice a season. That's part of Carolina's calculus - there's a reason why Nikishin, Morrow, Nadeau - none of them moved. Carolina gave up quantity - three prospects that are seen as tweeners toward the middle of their prospect pool, and there's a pretty damn good chance they got Guentzel for fewer than 100 NHL games out of five assets sent the other way.

 

That's not a quality trade.

[Br4d]

3 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I'll say, for my piece - I'd have wanted absolutely no part of either of those two going to Pittsburgh. I'm not opposed to dealing Othmann, but not to fucking Pittsburgh. You live with that decision for 5 games and playoffs for a decade, not just once or twice a season. That's part of Carolina's calculus - there's a reason why Nikishin, Morrow, Nadeau - none of them moved. Carolina gave up quantity - three prospects that are seen as tweeners toward the middle of their prospect pool, and there's a pretty damn good chance they got Guentzel for fewer than 100 NHL games out of five assets sent the other way.

 

That's not a quality trade.

 

And after all that the 'Canes lost to the team that they made the trade to beat.

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I'll say, for my piece - I'd have wanted absolutely no part of either of those two going to Pittsburgh. I'm not opposed to dealing Othmann, but not to fucking Pittsburgh. You live with that decision for 5 games and playoffs for a decade, not just once or twice a season. That's part of Carolina's calculus - there's a reason why Nikishin, Morrow, Nadeau - none of them moved. Carolina gave up quantity - three prospects that are seen as tweeners toward the middle of their prospect pool, and there's a pretty damn good chance they got Guentzel for fewer than 100 NHL games out of five assets sent the other way.

 

That's not a quality trade.

Considering they already made Guentzel rights available, you know they're pretty sure they gave up trash and don't really care if he stays. 

 

Yet the argument is Drury didn't want to give up value... To a team that clearly didn't care if they got value back for him? Seems like Drury was right to just not deal with Pittsburgh. 

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

Considering they already made Guentzel rights available, you know they're pretty sure they gave up trash and don't really care if he stays. 

 

Yet the argument is Drury didn't want to give up value... To a team that clearly didn't care if they got value back for him? Seems like Drury was right to just not deal with Pittsburgh. 

 

Yup. I agree. He was definitely right not to pay Pittsburgh a rivalry tax, given the stats and the team we had. It wasn't going to be worth it.

 

He now has those assets moving forward which is a pretty big deal. Maintaining some flexibility is key.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Yup. I agree. He was definitely right not to pay Pittsburgh a rivalry tax, given the stats and the team we had. It wasn't going to be worth it.

 

He now has those assets moving forward which is a pretty big deal. Maintaining some flexibility is key.

No. And this is why it's a frustrating conversation to have with you.

 

This is how you present...You have a certain POV of the organization. It's a fairly negative one, on the whole. 

 

So what's happening in this deadline conversation is that based on your POV of the organization, there can only be 2 paths. Either Drury didn't believe in the team and that's why he didn't sell the farm for rentals, or he just fucked up and got players who didn't help. Both of those outcomes solidify your view of the org. 

 

Any path outside that isn't a "quality counterpoint", so as far as you're concerned it's either A or B, and there is no other possible scenario that could have taken place because anything outside A or B would mean that you assumptions are incorrect.

 

There's a ton of grey area that you refuse to acknowledge exists because it challenges what you've decided is truth. But your POV isn't the only one and your truth isn't fact.

 

That's been my experience here so far. Happy for you to explain the POV further, because it can't just be "I've decided it's A or B, no room for discussion".

Edited June 12 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

No. And this is why it's a frustrating conversation to have with you.

 

This is how you present...You have a certain POV of the organization. It's a fairly negative one, on the whole. 

 

So what's happening in this deadline conversation is that based on your POV of the organization, there can only be 2 paths. Either Drury didn't believe in the team and that's why he didn't sell the farm for rentals, or he just fucked up and got players who didn't help. Both of those outcomes solidify your view of the org. 

 

Any path outside that isn't a "quality counterpoint", so as far as you're concerned it's either A or B, and there is no other possible scenario that could have taken place because anything outside A or B would mean that you assumptions are incorrect.

 

There's a ton of grey area that you refuse to acknowledge exists because it challenges what you've decided is truth. But your POV isn't the only one and your truth isn't fact.

 

That's been my experience here so far. Happy for you to explain the POV further, because it can't just be "I've decided it's A or B, no room for discussion".

I'm not sure why it frustrates you. I made a simple argument that Drury's deadline was somewhere between going all in and sitting on his hands. I think it was smart, and I think it was the right move, but the decision means something. GMs who believe they have the team, don't get so bothered by paying an elevated price in futures if they have to. There were options way better than Wennberg on the market, like Henrique. Anaheim got a 1st and a conditional 5th for a half-retained Henrique and half-retained Carrick. Drury could have beaten this offer unless we want to conjure up some conspiracy theory that Anaheim boxed Drury out from making an offer. He chose not to go for it, and settled for a clearly inferior player. If he really believed in the team, this is a penny wise and pound foolish type of decision to make because on the face of it he is throwing away a greater shot at a Cup over a 1st round pick instead of a 2nd. You should direct your frustration at Drury instead of me because you thought we had a golden ticket for a Cup and he hardly did anything at the deadline to support it.

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I'm not sure why it frustrates you. I made a simple argument that Drury's deadline was somewhere between going all in and sitting on his hands. I think it was smart, and I think it was the right move, but the decision means something. GMs who believe they have the team, don't get so bothered by paying an elevated price in futures if they have to. There were options way better than Wennberg on the market, like Henrique. Anaheim got a 1st and a conditional 5th for a half-retained Henrique and half-retained Carrick. Drury could have beaten this offer unless we want to conjure up some conspiracy theory that Anaheim boxed Drury out from making an offer. He chose not to go for it, and settled for a clearly inferior player. If he really believed in the team, this is a penny wise and pound foolish type of decision to make because on the face of it he is throwing away a greater shot at a Cup over a 1st round pick instead of a 2nd. You should direct your frustration at Drury instead of me because you thought we had a golden ticket for a Cup and he hardly did anything at the deadline to support it.

As I said, Henrique has four points in the playoffs and has waffled between being hurt and being scratched for the most part. I don't see how that's worth a first rounder.

 

Maybe Verbeek didn't think Edmonton had a chance at all and that the Rangers were a much better team, so they preferred the Edmonton first. 

 

That's kind of my point of a lot of gray area existing between what you consider to be path a and path b. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

As I said, Henrique has four points in the playoffs and has waffled between being hurt and being scratched for the most part. I don't see how that's worth a first rounder.

 

Maybe Verbeek didn't think Edmonton had a chance at all and that the Rangers were a much better team, so they preferred the Edmonton first. 

 

That's kind of my point of a lot of gray area existing between what you consider to be path a and path b. 

 

Hindsight doesn't apply here.

 

Your other point comes into play if the offers are the same. Even if it did here, Drury clearly had the assets to beat a 1st rounder that might have been perceived as slightly more valuable, if he wanted to.

 

I don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill today.

[Albatrosss]

24 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I'm not sure why it frustrates you. I made a simple argument that Drury's deadline was somewhere between going all in and sitting on his hands. I think it was smart, and I think it was the right move, but the decision means something. GMs who believe they have the team, don't get so bothered by paying an elevated price in futures if they have to. There were options way better than Wennberg on the market, like Henrique. Anaheim got a 1st and a conditional 5th for a half-retained Henrique and half-retained Carrick. Drury could have beaten this offer unless we want to conjure up some conspiracy theory that Anaheim boxed Drury out from making an offer. He chose not to go for it, and settled for a clearly inferior player. If he really believed in the team, this is a penny wise and pound foolish type of decision to make because on the face of it he is throwing away a greater shot at a Cup over a 1st round pick instead of a 2nd. You should direct your frustration at Drury instead of me because you thought we had a golden ticket for a Cup and he hardly did anything at the deadline to support it.

i dont get Drury here either.  He must've not believed in this team to be able to go all the way.  But then again, this team was pretty much one of the best teams all season.  IMO this was the season to go all in, not last year's team or the year prior.