2024 Off-season Thread: Burn in Effigy

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, RichieNextel305 said:

Zuccarello in a hospital, McDonagh playing on one leg. Several other guys banged up. Believe Girardi was compromised too.

 

That year, Tampa swept the season series with us. They kicked the shit out of us in Callahans return. They beat us pretty good in Tampa. They were the only team in the league that really took it to that Rangers team. 
 

And honestly, no disrespect whatsoever to what eventually was the Champs that year, and a team that knew how to win seeing as how it was their 3rd Cup in 5 years, but I do think that Rangers team, healthy, would have given Chicago a better fight than Tampa. I really do think we could have beat them if we got by Tampa and if we were healthy.

 

But again, luck. Health. Everything plays into this. Fatigue. Exhaustion. Everything. That Ranger team deserved a lot better. It was like Florida this year where they had grown together, learned together, and then seemed poised to go grab the Cup together.

 

But they fell short. Thems the breaks. It doesn’t mean there was an error in team building or philosophy. Hell, tons of those guys eventually went on to win Cups; some multiple Cups.

Indeed. The Rangers were one win away from going to the Cup Final in back to back seasons themselves, which is pretty damn impressive. Maybe something we took for granted, I don't know. That's difficult to do in this day and age. This franchise has done everything but win the Cup since they turned things around in 2005. It's been a fun ride, just need that chip.

[BrooksBurner]

37 minutes ago, Pete said:

Cool so let's talk about how much more time and space Lafreniere and Trocheck get because they play with Panarin.

 

I'll keep this post pinned for the next time you're whining about how it's only production that matters. 

 

This is a valid point. Hard to say one way or another until we see them separated, but chances are Panarin has an impact on that. This is my struggle with you on the topic. I’m not trying to avoid giving Panarin any credit at all. He was much better in the playoffs this year than the last 2 years. I can see why someone might have optimism behind it, but my view is that was probably as good in the playoffs as it gets for him. My criticism, however, is through a $12 million lens. It’s just not anywhere close to that level.

 

Production as a basis of criticism depends on the type of player. Panarin is only here to score points. He’s not mistaken for a Selke candidate. He’s not physical. He’s not chippy. He’s not a forechecker. He’s a premier offensive player who is here to score. That’s it. You can’t properly measure a guy Barkov like that with everything else he does on the ice.

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

This is a valid point. Hard to say one way or another until we see them separated, but chances are Panarin has an impact on that. This is my struggle with you on the topic. I’m not trying to avoid giving Panarin any credit at all. He was much better in the playoffs this year than the last 2 years. I can see why someone might have optimism behind it, but my view is that was probably as good in the playoffs as it gets for him. My criticism, however, is through a $12 million lens. It’s just not anywhere close to that level.

 

Production as a basis of criticism depends on the type of player. Panarin is only here to score points. He’s not mistaken for a Selke candidate. He’s not physical. He’s not chippy. He’s not a forechecker. He’s a premier offensive player who is here to score. That’s it. You can’t properly measure a guy Barkov like that with everything else he does on the ice.

The reality of the playoffs that most times the top players on both teams cancel each other out. Either nobody is scoring, or everybody scoring. Barkov and Tkachuk were silent in the finals. So was Draisaitl, and in specific important games, McDavid. When McDavid was firing Florida clearly had no answer, at some point he got hurt. 

 

What hurt in the Florida series was that they got no depth scoring. Even in the deciding game Roslovic shut the puck 18 in over a wide open corner.

 

I'll continue to state the margins are razor thin, a little more one way or the other and the Rangers are beating Florida and probably Edmonton. 

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

42 minutes ago, Pete said:

The reality of the playoffs that most times the top players on both teams cancel each other out. Either nobody is scoring, or everybody scoring. Barkov and Tkachuk were silent in the finals. So was Draisaitl, and in specific important games, McDavid. When McDavid was firing Florida clearly had no answer, at some point he got hurt. 

 

What hurt in the Florida series was that they got no depth scoring. Even in the deciding game Roslovic shut the puck 18 in over a wide open corner.

 

I'll continue to state the margins are razor thin, a little more one way or the other and the Rangers are beating Florida and probably Edmonton. 

 

 

I think we focus on things like blasting Roslovic for that play, missing an open net when clearly it was a difficult shot to hit 20 feet out with the puck skipping like crazy on the ice, because the chances generated are so few and far between for this team that the ones we do get are put under a microscope. The Rangers lose these kind of games against good teams consistently, and look bad doing it, because they are incapable of generating consistent chances. That starts with an anemic forecheck and an inability to gain and establish control in the zone. They are fairly solid at OZ possession when they can win possession, but they just suck at it so it doesn’t happen enough. That’s what needs to change. You and some others might disagree, that’s fine, but I’m not going to stop stressing that point until I see improvement via combination of stats and eye test.

[Pete]

20 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I think we focus on things like blasting Roslovic for that play, missing an open net when clearly it was a difficult shot to hit 20 feet out with the puck skipping like crazy on the ice, because the chances generated are so few and far between for this team that the ones we do get are put under a microscope. The Rangers lose these kind of games against good teams consistently, and look bad doing it, because they are incapable of generating consistent chances. That starts with an anemic forecheck and an inability to gain and establish control in the zone. They are fairly solid at OZ possession when they can win possession, but they just suck at it so it doesn’t happen enough. That’s what needs to change. You and some others might disagree, that’s fine, but I’m not going to stop stressing that point until I see improvement via combination of stats and eye test.

There's a lot here that I don't agree with, but I don't have to. Your view of the team skews twice as negative as my view of the team skews positive, I will say that.

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

There's a lot here that I don't agree with, but I don't have to. Your view of the team skews twice as negative as my view of the team skews positive, I will say that.

 

Right, and I think you put on a show of faux optimism. It is what it is.

[Long live the King]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

 

Right, and I think you put on a show of faux optimism. It is what it is.

 

Saying the team that won the president's trophy and made the conference finals loses consistently is faux pessimism.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Long live the King said:

 

Saying the team that won the president's trophy and made the conference finals loses consistently is faux pessimism.

 

Yeah, no. That's not the scope of what I said.

 

Not sure why you are quoting me talking to Pete unless you think of yourself as a faux optimist too. You've always been naturally optimistic and I respect that even if I don't share the outlook.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Right, and I think you put on a show of faux optimism. It is what it is.

The "faux optimism" is mostly just your ego. You can't really fathom the idea that someone can look at the same thing you look at and see something completely different, so they're either wrong or faking it. It drives you up a wall that others can enjoy themselves and think this team is very, very good, because you don't. That's really all it comes down to.

 

The fact of the matter is that no GM is going to blow up a team like the Rangers, nor are they trading a guy coming off an MVP level season. That's loser thinking. You want to throw out Florida and Tkachuck, yet you want to move Panarin to get guys like Bertuzzi, which even you can realize isn't the same thing.

 

But at the end of the day, I understand that I have zero control over what happens. So once you understand that, there are 2 choices... 1. Enjoy the ride because they're not running back a bottom feeder like you're trying to gaslight everyone into thinking, or 2. be miserable and whine and bitch and moan and wish they had Morgan Geekie and Tyler Bertuzzi.

 

I personally choose to enjoy the ride. You can do what you want.

[Br4d]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

I personally choose to enjoy the ride. You can do what you want.

 

Man this does not sound like the guy taking buzzsaws to GG the prior two years.

 

"Enjoy the ride",  really?

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Man this does not sound like the guy taking buzzsaws to GG the prior two years.

 

"Enjoy the ride",  really?

That's the only thing you and your buddy can cling to. With all due respect, it's bullshit. 

 

I'll say it again for the people in the back—THAT WAS BECAUSE THE COACH WAS WASTING A GOOD TEAM. And he wasn't doing anything. He wasn't coaching. It was clear and has since been confirmed by fucking everybody LOL.

 

Can I make it more clear? If so please tell me how.

 

That's quite different than complaining about 4/5 of the roster, complaining about Laviolette getting hired, complaining about everything Drury does (he's too stupid! he has no balls!), calling it a loser organization, etc.

 

Even you can understand the difference.

 

And, I was still enjoying those games. Lots of speed and skill. People keep saying the team was good. I said it wasn't, it was 4 good players and a goalie.

 

This season was much, much different.

Edited June 26 by Pete

[Br4d]

Right and Laviolette did not waste the same team by getting to the exact same spot that GG did in '21-22 but being unable to move on?

 

Again, I don't mind that you are hostile to the organization when they are doing things you don't approve of.  It's just a bad look when the team winds up in the same place over a two year span and one of those outcomes has you farting all over the place and the other has you "chilling and enjoying the ride."

[BrooksBurner]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

The "faux optimism" is mostly just your ego. You can't really fathom the idea that someone can look at the same thing you look at and see something completely different, so they're either wrong or faking it. It drives you up a wall that others can enjoy themselves and think this team is very, very good, because you don't. That's really all it comes down to.

 

The fact of the matter is that no GM is going to blow up a team like the Rangers, nor are they trading a guy coming off an MVP level season. That's loser thinking. You want to throw out Florida and Tkachuck, yet you want to move Panarin to get guys like Bertuzzi, which even you can realize isn't the same thing.

 

But at the end of the day, I understand that I have zero control over what happens. So once you understand that, there are 2 choices... 1. Enjoy the ride because they're not running back a bottom feeder like you're trying to gaslight everyone into thinking, or 2. be miserable and whine and bitch and moan and wish they had Morgan Geekie and Tyler Bertuzzi.

 

I personally choose to enjoy the ride. You can do what you want.

I ain’t reading all that. I’m happy for you though. Or sorry that happened

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, Br4d said:

Right and Laviolette did not waste the same team by getting to the exact same spot that GG did in '21-22 but being unable to move on?

No, he didn't waste the team. He had no 1RW, no 3C, and no third pair for like the whole year. I'd say the President's trophy and ECF was an over achievement. The team also survived long stretches of Igor being below average, the PP not working, etc. So please stop saying "It's just like GG!" because reality is—it ain't and never was.

 

Quote

Again, I don't mind that you are hostile to the organization when they are doing things you don't approve of.  It's just a bad look when the team winds up in the same place over a two year span and one of those outcomes has you farting all over the place and the other has you "chilling and enjoying the ride."

I was never hostile to the org, just GG. That's what you don't get. It's one thing to throw a flare at a certain player or whatnot, it's quite another to shit on the entire roster outside like 2 guys, and shit on everything the org does. Like bitching about the Trouba contract where they were negotiating against themselves, sure....But y'all go above and beyond.

 

You get that, right?

Edited June 26 by Pete

[fletch]

Given the Rangers are coming off a ECF appearance, and the NMCs, the most likely scenario is that no major changes are made.  See what Laviolette can do in year 2 and give the veterans one more chance with Shesterkin.

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/rangers

 

The cap/contract situation is basically telling you that we can't afford market value for the next contract for Shesterkin - and that we are going to lose him.

 

The cap/contracts dictate we're committed to the core veterans to get things done with continued development from the younger players.

 

An overhaul isn't realistic - so we need to maximize what we have.

 

I do think we have an abundance of perimeter playmakers and wish we had better net-front presence that seeks physical contact, but we'll be good enough for another chance next playoffs. 

[Scott]

There were a lot of the same issues, zone exits, zone entries, lack of a sustained meaningful forecheck, overpassing, way to much E/W vs N/S, 5x5 struggles with the last two coaches. So while some things changed the more some things stayed the same.  Many of the things I listed I thought were going to be remedied by Laviolette. 

 

Turns out the challenge of teaching old dogs new tricks was more of the real problem.

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

There were a lot of the same issues, zone exits, zone entries, lack of a sustained meaningful forecheck, overpassing, way to much E/W vs N/S, 5x5 struggles with the last two coaches. So while some things changed the more some things stayed the same.  Many of the things I listed I thought were going to be remedied by Laviolette. 

 

Turns out the challenge of teaching old dogs new tricks was more of the real problem.

Some of the things linger, but others did get better. They got better at 5v5, it just wasn't enough. I mean the Bakery Line scored the most five on five goals in the league. 

 

Some of the other issues are easier to spot, Mika was basically playing three on five the whole season. The defenseman aren't nearly as good as they need to be moving the pucks out. 

 

They also played a lot of the season with Bonino, Pitlick, Brodzinski in the lineup playing prominent roles. There's no way any of those guys should be on a third line of any kind. 

 

I think you're going to get better than Goodrow on the fourth line, and they need to improve the third line and Mika's line. 

 

All very doable things within the budget. Removing Trouba would be huge. 

Edited June 26 by Pete

[Scott]

29 minutes ago, Pete said:

Some of the things linger, but others did get better. They got better at 5v5, it just wasn't enough. I mean the Bakery Line scored the most five on five goals in the league. 

 

Some of the other issues are easier to spot, Mika was basically playing three on five the whole season. The defenseman aren't nearly as good as they need to be moving the pucks out. 

 

They also played a lot of the season with Bonino, Pitlick, Brodzinski in the lineup playing prominent roles. There's no way any of those guys should be on a third line of any kind. 

 

I think you're going to get better than Goodrow on the fourth line, and they need to improve the third line and Mika's line. 

 

All very doable things within the budget. Removing Trouba would be huge. 

Don't disagree at all there's was just no silver bullet.  The group proved again to be slow learners or worst. Roster issues, yes.  Did I expect to see more system wide fixes that would cover some of the warts, I did. So while getting to the 3rd round after an exciting regular season is on the whole a really solid season I was surprised to see some of the same struggle. I'm somebody who does enjoy the ride throughout the season not just the last stop on the train wherever that is. But hell I'm not sure how Lavi has a hair on his head after watching simple things like the ill timed and often laziest of line changes that were there pretty consistently throughout the entire season.

 

Freeing Trouba's cap space would probably mean the difference in filing in the gaps with decent players vs more jags.

Edited June 26 by Scott

[Albatrosss]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Don't disagree at all there's was just no silver bullet.  The group proved again to be slow learners or worst. Roster issues, yes.  Did I expect to see more system wide fixes that would cover some of the warts, I did. So while getting to the 3rd round after an exciting regular season is on the whole a really solid season I was surprised to see some of the same struggle. I'm somebody who does enjoy the ride throughout the season not just the last stop on the train wherever that is. But hell I'm not sure how Lavi has a hair on his head after watching simple things like the ill timed and often laziest of line changes that were there pretty consistently throughout the entire season.

 

Freeing Trouba's cap space would probably mean the difference in filing in the gaps with decent players vs more jags.

At the end of the day its pretty evident that its not the coach. A coach, good or bad, can only take a team so far. The players are the ones who will make the difference.  No coach will make Panarin take a hit to make a play or Kreider win a puck battle or Zibby drive to the net. 

[Pete]

6 hours ago, Albatrosss said:

At the end of the day its pretty evident that its not the coach. A coach, good or bad, can only take a team so far. The players are the ones who will make the difference.  No coach will make Panarin take a hit to make a play or Kreider win a puck battle or Zibby drive to the net. 

Some of this is true, and some of it isn't.

 

Coaches matter otherwise they wouldn't get paid millions of dollars. Players listen to coaches, otherwise you would never hear about a coach getting tuned out. 

 

The Rangers were never going to win anything with Gallant, because nobody ever has and there's a reason he's not even being interviewed.

 

So at the end of the day it was pretty evident that the coach was a big problem. You needed to remove him to see what else was there. You could have changed all the players on the roster and the outcome wouldn't have changed because GG is a shitty coach and everybody knows it and he's been exposed enough that nobody should be defending him.

 

That said in many cases it takes more than one season for the coach to leave his fingerprints on a team. Even with Galant it was evident from the minute he showed up that he wasn't doing anything. But it wasn't until the middle of the second season that the tension started to mount. 

 

So we'll see what happens this year. What happens over the summer and the conversation the coaches have with players can sometimes be more important than what happens during the season when they're focusing on games. The Rangers improved in every category that they needed to, they just didn't improve enough in some of them. A lot of that is due to the way the roster was constructed. I think a team that had no top line wing or third line center or consistent third pair of defense winning the president's trophy is a pretty big overachievement.

 

But it could be a case that both things are true. Maybe the roster is a problem. But that doesn't change the fact that the coach was also a very very big problem. You can even tell by both of their demeanors. Gallant is out there blaming the roster and Lavvy is out there saying it's his job to get the most out of it. Anybody who claims to value accountability should appreciate that. 

 

As for the other ad hoc shots at players, let me know if you want to dissect those because there's plenty there to pick apart. 

 

Edited June 27 by Pete

[Br4d]

14 hours ago, fletch said:

Given the Rangers are coming off a ECF appearance, and the NMCs, the most likely scenario is that no major changes are made.  See what Laviolette can do in year 2 and give the veterans one more chance with Shesterkin.

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/rangers

 

The cap/contract situation is basically telling you that we can't afford market value for the next contract for Shesterkin - and that we are going to lose him.

 

The cap/contracts dictate we're committed to the core veterans to get things done with continued development from the younger players.

 

An overhaul isn't realistic - so we need to maximize what we have.

 

I do think we have an abundance of perimeter playmakers and wish we had better net-front presence that seeks physical contact, but we'll be good enough for another chance next playoffs. 

 

Rolling it back is an extraordinarily optimistic projection at this point.

 

Rangers were very good at 1-goal games and coming from behind last season - in fact setting the all-time mark for come-from-behind victories.

 

They should be 10+ points worse this season just on the law of averages.

 

So most likely rolling it back scenario is we get 104 points next season, maybe 3rd seed in the Met, and then out again sooner than we'd like.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Rolling it back is an extraordinarily optimistic projection at this point.

 

Rangers were very good at 1-goal games and coming from behind last season - in fact setting the all-time mark for come-from-behind victories.

 

They should be 10+ points worse this season just on the law of averages.

 

So most likely rolling it back scenario is we get 104 points next season, maybe 3rd seed in the Met, and then out again sooner than we'd like.

Or counterpoint, they will improve the roster and they might not have to come back as often, and if they do, rolling it back means the same players that know how to come from behind last year will be able to come from behind this year if they need to. 

 

But you keep insisting on your negative spin and baseless predictions!

Edited June 27 by Pete

[fletch]

18 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Rolling it back is an extraordinarily optimistic projection at this point.

 

Rangers were very good at 1-goal games and coming from behind last season - in fact setting the all-time mark for come-from-behind victories.

 

They should be 10+ points worse this season just on the law of averages.

 

So most likely rolling it back scenario is we get 104 points next season, maybe 3rd seed in the Met, and then out again sooner than we'd like.

I'm looking at the contracts the Rangers have committed to (NMCs) and realistically they don't have much cap space.  It dictates that this is the last year of Shesterkin.  You might not like the roster composition or the ceiling for this team, but given the limitations on changes you need to maximize what you've got on the roster.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Some of this is true, and some of it isn't.

 

Coaches matter otherwise they wouldn't get paid millions of dollars. Players listen to coaches, otherwise you would never hear about a coach getting tuned out. 

 

The Rangers were never going to win anything with Gallant, because nobody ever has and there's a reason he's not even being interviewed.

 

So at the end of the day it was pretty evident that the coach was a big problem. You needed to remove him to see what else was there. You could have changed all the players on the roster and the outcome wouldn't have changed because GG is a shitty coach and everybody knows it and he's been exposed enough that nobody should be defending him.

 

That said in many cases it takes more than one season for the coach to leave his fingerprints on a team. Even with Galant it was evident from the minute he showed up that he wasn't doing anything. But it wasn't until the middle of the second season that the tension started to mount. 

 

So we'll see what happens this year. What happens over the summer and the conversation the coaches have with players can sometimes be more important than what happens during the season when they're focusing on games. The Rangers improved in every category that they needed to, they just didn't improve enough in some of them. A lot of that is due to the way the roster was constructed. I think a team that had no top line wing or third line center or consistent third pair of defense winning the president's trophy is a pretty big overachievement.

 

But it could be a case that both things are true. Maybe the roster is a problem. But that doesn't change the fact that the coach was also a very very big problem. You can even tell by both of their demeanors. Gallant is out there blaming the roster and Lavvy is out there saying it's his job to get the most out of it. Anybody who claims to value accountability should appreciate that. 

 

As for the other ad hoc shots at players, let me know if you want to dissect those because there's plenty there to pick apart. 

 

Gallant was scapegoated as the only problem. That was incorrect from day one and it still is. The Rangers ranked as bad or nearly as bad in everything important analytically this season. Two things they improved were PK by a couple of percentage points and their good fortune to swing 1 goal games their way, as Brad has pointed out since like December. They still suck at 5v5.

Edited June 27 by BrooksBurner

[Sharpshooter]

Fair enough, but still glad Gallant isn't coaching this team. lol