77's Final Thoughts & Looking Ahead
The Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy in professional sports to win.
Not only are The NHL's four playoff rounds of best-of-7-series (16 wins) the most of any sport, but it's also still a game of inches. The physical and mental fatigue is often taken for granted by fans watching their team in a double-overtime game during The Stanley Cup Finals in June, finding themselves yelling "HIT THE NET!" or "HOW DO YOU TURN THAT OVER?" The toll of playing in more than 100 games (spread out on an average of one game every other night) from October to June (not including a pre-season that sometimes starts with travel across Europe) will never fully be understood by even the most diehard fans, let alone the casual bandwagoners who come out of the woodwork in late May.
Playing into June requires a team to not only come together and play at a high level, but to find ways to win when you don't play your best; to find different ways to win games when you're unable to dictate the pace of the game and your usual gameplan isn't successful. It also requires a fair amount of luck. No team has ever won The Stanley Cup without getting their share of fortunate bounces, borderline calls, etc.
The 2014 LA Kings are the most recent example.
Despite Henrik Lundqvist having far superior playoff statistics to Jonathon Quick heading into the Stanley Cup Finals, it's a fair statement to say that they are two of the best (if not THE two best) goaltenders in the world. Despite drastically different styles (Quick being the hunched-over, above-the-crease, ultra-aggressive acrobat and Lundqvist staying deep in his crease, practically on the goal-line relying on his lightning-quick reaction speed and textbook positioning) both goalies end up with similar statlines and similar results while giving their respective teams a great chance to win on any given night, regardless of how the rest of the team plays. These are both game-changers and a strong case could be made that both are the best players on their respective teams.
In the Stanley Cup Finals, Quick found himself out of position, throwing his blocker-side arm up in desperation, and somehow the puck hit the paddle of his stick three times in one game. On the other end of the ice, 6 of the Kings' first 9 goals were deflected in off Henrik Lundqvist's own teammates. The bounces just weren't on the Rangers' side. As inhuman as Lundqvist played, he was eventually foiled by unintentional bounces that found their way into the back of his net, while Quick (equally as stellar) found those same deflected pucks perfectly re-directed into his chest, arms, or skate. Even when the puck did manage to elude Quick, it somehow found iron and clanked out of the crease and out of harm's way. Those same bounces for Lundqvist bounce back off his teammates skate and into the net.
I'm not going to touch on the series of crucial calls that the referees and linesmen got wrong, because that's something that will always be a part of the game and Championship teams need to rise above all that and refuse to let that be a defining storyline. I'll just say that the Rangers needed all the help they could get against such a strong team in LA and they found themselves on the wrong side of puck-luck and officiating for the majority of the series. Anyone who thinks there is some conspiracy / vendetta against the Rangers has no idea what they're talking about. If there was some conspiracy, the Rangers would likely be the team the NHL wanted in the Finals every year. The national and local ratings for this SCF set records. There is no conspiracy or vendetta, not league-wide, and not from any individual referee. It's simply the human element of officiating the game. It's always been wildly inconsistent and it always will be. Someone will always feel like they got the odd end of the calls in a certain game, and sometimes they'll be right. But it's not because of any intention or bias. It's because referees make mistakes, and unlike us with the benefit of watching 100 replays from different angles at different speeds, their job (an extremely difficult and thankless one) is to decide at 100 miles per hour if a play was legal or not in real-time. Perhaps the addition of a Coach's Challenge or some form of reviewable replay will help improve this aspect of the game, but it's always going to have a place in the game and it simply needs to be accepted. The 1994 Rangers found themselves on the receiving end of plenty of botched calls, but they found a way to rise above it and not let that dictate the storyline of their game and their season.
So now what do the Rangers do from here?
Our center depth was exposed. Whether Brad Richards is bought out or not, there needs to be a resolution to this issue. While the Kings roll Kopitar-Carter-Stoll-Richards, we put out Stepan-Brassard-Richards-Moore/Boyle. In my opinion, Dominic Moore is capable of being our Jarrett Stoll. He can play 3rd-line center and be a faceoff specialist while bringing enough offensive creativity and strong defensive play to not be holding his wingers back. Brad Richards, however, doesn't have the type of game that Mike Richards does to be that 4th-line center who is hard to play against and can chip in on offense occasionally. Richards needs bigger, faster wingers to create and find open space so that when he gets the puck, he has someone going to the net that he can get the puck to. Playmaking is still his best attribute, but it does him no good if his wingers can't get open and it's become evident that he alone isn't capable of creating space for himself or his linemates due to his lack of speed, lack of physicality, and age is catching up to him. He seemed gassed after the first 15 seconds of every shift he played in the Finals. The Brad Richards buyout discussion is a big one, so I'll leave it at that. The bigger issue is our top-two centers: Derek Stepan and Derrick Brassard. Now, to be fair, both players were injured (Stepan: broken jaw playing with full cage and Brassard: recently returned from shoulder injury that was almost certainly not fully healed). However, neither player had any real offensive impact in the Finals. Stepan's skating still seems to be an issue. When he's producing points, it looks like it isn't an issue, but when he's not completely on top of his game, it shows as he's unable to keep up or unable to even get to a puck to begin or keep a play alive. Of course it didn't help that he was playing exclusively with Rick Nash whose offensive ability was sucked into a black hole some time in March. Brassard, who can actually skate, didn't seem to be doing enough of it at the right times. Hesitation crept back into his game and nullified his strengths. He was often uninvolved in the play while Zuccarello and even Pouliot controlled and cycled the puck. Brassard and Stepan were fine during the three prior rounds, so is this all a knee-jerk reaction after losing to a stronger, deeper, more experiened LA Kings team?
Our mental toughness and inexperience was exposed as we bent until we broke and crumbled under pressure in every 3rd period in the Finals. We couldn't weather the storm of the King's 3rd period surges and when they came back to tie games 1, 2, and 5, we seemed nervous and on our heels. Perhaps that was a learning experience that this team needed to endure so that we will be prepared to overcome those situations in the future. I do think that especially for players like Kreider, Stepan, Staal, McDonagh, Stralman, and Lundqvist this SCF experience was invaluable.
While I do believe we were extremely close (a few bounces away) from winning The Stanley Cup, that doesn't mean that we should "stand pat" and expect to make it back there again. Just as the Kings got lucky along their path to the Final, and especially so IN them, we had some fortunate bounces and matchup situations along the way that are not guaranteed to fall our way in the future. Therefore, while we were close, we still need to make some changes to improve and keep pace with the top teams rather than simply standing still and being jumped over. Add salary cap implications to the mix and we could be looking at a very busy offseason for the NY Rangers.
As of right now, I see two ideal scenarios (again, ideal, not necessarily the most likely to happen, especially with so many moving parts)...
Scenario 1:
Amnesty buy out Brad Richards (relieves 6.67 million in cap-space)
Trade Rick Nash to San Jose for Joe Pavelski (Thornton-Nash connection)
Trade Stepan for WPG for Zach Bogosian
Trade Girardi, 2nd, and the rights to Brian Boyle to EDM for Nail Yakupov
Re-sign Stralman, Dom Moore, Pouliot, Carcillo
Kreider Pavelski St. Louis
Yakupov Brassard Zuccarello
Hagelin Moore Pouliot
Dorsett Miller Carcillo
McDonagh Bogosian
Staal Stralman
Moore Klein
Lundqvist
Talbot
Scenario 2:
Amnesty buy out Brad Richards (relieves 6.67 million in cap-space)
Sign Ryan O'Reilly to an OFFER SHEET: 7 years x 7 million cap hit (7yr, 49mil)
(note: This is a HAIR more than Brad Richards' current deal. We came close to having Richards on that contract. I see no problem with signing a top, young, two-way center to a SLIGHTLY better deal)
Trade Nash to DET (Mike Babcock connection) for Tomas Tatar and Gustav Nyqvist
(note: Perhaps NYR retain a % of Nash's salary to get this deal done)
Trade Girardi, 2nd, and the rights to Brian Boyle to EDM for Yakupov
Re-sign Stralman, Moore
Sign Dan Boyle (1 year deal)
Kreider O'Reilly St. Louis
Stepan Brassard Zuccarello
Tatar Nyqvist Yakupov
Hagelin Moore Dorsett
McDonagh Stralman
Staal Boyle
Moore Klein
Lundqvist
Talbot
This would be the deepest possible lineup IMO, but it all hinges on Sather giving an offer sheet to Ryan O'Reilly, which has been something that Sather has publicly been against in the past. It would also be right up against the cap.
IMO, the best Nash trade is a 2-for-1 that gets us two young players. We already traded away depth to acquire Nash, and then traded away Gaborik to re-acquire that depth. It would be silly to trade Nash simply for more depth, but it could be a very positive move to move Nash and his big cap-hit for two young, skilled, albeit unproven players (ie: Tatar and Nyqvist). Not only does it give us cap-relief, but we fill two top-9 spots, which dramatically improves our secondary scoring.
In Scenario 2, the depth is so strong that Stepan is slotted in as a LW. That would be fine if it ended up happening: Stepan has never been a strong faceoff man, and he's actually played well in the brief stints that he's played on the wing in previous seasons. But, this also allows for more versatility and flexibility, and even the potential to trade Stepan for a top-4 defender if Dan Boyle or Stralman don't work out in their respective roles. (Perhaps Stepan for Bogosian rather than signing Dan Boyle in the first place. There are plenty of options here.)
Thoughts?
Comments?
Questions?
General Rage?
I hope at least one person enjoys some of what I just wasted 20 minutes writing. Hahaha. P.S. This is a fantastic fan forum. Keep up the great work, boys and girls.
