Player Discussion Alexis Lafrenière: Part II

[BroadwayStorm]

I think the other divisions are far weaker than the east, especially defensively and physically. And we would have a much better record facing weaker opponents. There are no weak opponents in the east.

 

[aufheben]

I think the Rangers’ opponents so far is more relevant than the division as a whole, although I’m not sure either are relevant to Laf...

Pittsburgh Penguins 4 - 88.60 SV% (28th)
New York Islanders 3 - 91.63 SV% (6th)
New Jersey Devils 2 - 91.78 SV% (3rd)
Buffalo Sabres 2 - 89.49 SV% (24th)
Washington Capitals 2 - 88.87 SV% (27th)
Boston Bruins 2 - 91.02 SV% (10th)
Philadelphia Flyers 1 - 90.20 SV% (21st)

 

[CasusBelli]

I think the other divisions are far weaker than the east, especially defensively and physically. And we would have a much better record facing weaker opponents. There are no weak opponents in the east.

Frankly, other than the Isles and the Caps, no teams in our division stand out this year. The other teams wouldn’t be threatening to, say, Montreal or Toronto — as much as people enjoy crapping on the North.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I didn't notice it (but am looking at the stats now myself). All I know is we were constantly told the East is the toughest and the North would be the most offensive and while it's true for the North the other 3 divisions have been pretty similar with regards to the goal scoring.

At the same time though I think you consider that teams with bad goal differentials like Anaheim/Det/NSH aren't bad because they are a disaster defensively. They just don't score. I don't think having them in divisions exactly makes other teams output greater.

I'm not really sure why you're making it sound like the claim about the east is not true. It's still apparently the 2nd best defensive division and of course the top 3 are close you'll never seen huge variance in something like this.

 

[Synergy27]

I didn't notice it (but am looking at the stats now myself). All I know is we were constantly told the East is the toughest and the North would be the most offensive and while it's true for the North the other 3 divisions have been pretty similar with regards to the goal scoring.

At the same time though I think you consider that teams with bad goal differentials like Anaheim/Det/NSH aren't bad because they are a disaster defensively. They just don't score. I don't think having them in divisions exactly makes other teams output greater.

When I ran the numbers, the East division had the lowest spread by quite a bit. I didn’t take it to the next step to look at average, STD, etc., but it suggested to me that the East has better top to bottom quality. No easy outs.

 

[Crease]

The only thing that's been toxic are the handful of posters that let us know every time Tim Stutzle farts and I've called that out every time.

FYI Stutzle assisted on one fart so far tonight and has two sneezes on net.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

FYI Stutzle assisted on one fart so far tonight and has two sneezes on net.

Who needs assistance farting?

 

[SA16]

I'm not really sure why you're making it sound like the claim about the east is not true. It's still apparently the 2nd best defensive division and of course the top 3 are close you'll never seen huge variance in something like this.

Probably because it's not true.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Probably because it's not true.

It's the second best defensive division with small variance, what part is not true?

 

[Adam Fox Time]

Responding to the discussion about the Rangers' ability to draft/develop players, the Rangers had some truly awful asset management in the 90s. They sold out to win the Cup in 1994, trading away Doug Weight and Tony Amonte (both drafted by the Rangers). Then after that you have this wonderful series of trades:

1995 - Trade Petr Nedved (who they got in a great trade after they won the Cup) and Sergei Zubov (drafted by the Rangers) for Luc Robitaille+
1997 - Trade Luc Robitaille for Kevin Stevens
1998 - Trade Alexei Kovalev+ (drafted by the Rangers) for Petr Nedved+

They also traded Marc Savard (drafted by the Rangers) to move up two spots in the 1999 draft 1st round, which is one of the worst of all time.

The point is that had the Rangers had made smarter decisions during this time, they easily could have been a contender throughout the 2000s and no one would be talking about their inability to draft/develop players.

 

[007]

Responding to the discussion about the Rangers' ability to draft/develop players, the Rangers had some truly awful asset management in the 90s. They sold out to win the Cup in 1994, trading away Doug Weight and Tony Amonte (both drafted by the Rangers). Then after that you have this wonderful series of trades:

1995 - Trade Petr Nedved (who they got in a great trade after they won the Cup) and Sergei Zubov (drafted by the Rangers) for Luc Robitaille+
1997 - Trade Luc Robitaille for Kevin Stevens
1998 - Trade Alexei Kovalev+ (drafted by the Rangers) for Petr Nedved+

They also traded Marc Savard (drafted by the Rangers) to move up two spots in the 1999 draft 1st round, which is one of the worst of all time.

The point is that had the Rangers had made smarter decisions during this time, they easily could have been a contender throughout the 2000s and no one would be talking about their inability to draft/develop players.

Why do you have to remind me of all this?! What did I ever do to you?!

...and don't forget we traded away Mattias Norström for whatever was left of Marty McSorley.

 

[Larrybiv]

Sort of, I shouldn't be talking like I'm some authoritative source but it goes without saying: hockey teams who play preventive defense usually need to sacrifice something along the way. My general impression of the Rangers is they don't generate as many scoring chances per game as most teams, wouldn't be surprised if they're bottom quarter of the league on that front (maybe bottom third). I'd definitely guess they're top quarter (in a good way) in preventing high danger events against.

I'm going by eye test on this one, but I decided to follow the Rangers this year due to interest in your two young big time prospects and my general takeaway is Rangers games are hard to watch...put in another way, the amount of events happening in most games seems low, particularly on transition plays. Perhaps as the season goes along, things could change.

Yes, in many ways they have been. As we are not exactly the Avalanche (for example) with offensive talent free wheeling and doing their thing. But, I think that is what is being stated here. We DO have this unprecedented talent on the team and maybe the expectations were very high because we are so excited to finally HAVE this talent, but seems like the reigns are being held tightly.
This year giving all the bumps from Covid, THIS YEAR should have been the year you (Quinn) throw caution to the wind. Let the defensemen defend and "allow" the very talented kids have fun and play "hockey". Yeah, I am stating very simple stuff, but am pretty sure as an HF GROUP, that we would all "prefer" that THIS YEAR, and get down and dirty next year AFTER these kids got their confidence super high, eventually combining the two years and two "systems".

 

[CTRanger]

The Rangers struggle at developing forwards is a falsehood largely due to the fact they have not drafted many year. In the last 20 years here are their R1 forwards:

Lafreniere
Kakko
Kravtsov

All 3 too early to say anything on.

Andersson - bust
Miller - good first line player
Kreider - good first line player
Cherepanov - died
Korpikoski - bust
Jessiman - bust

A total of 9 in 20 years. Late picks are mostly just luck. Andersson is also the only one of the 6 above who was a top 10 pick.

Korpikoski was not a bust. He played over 600 NHL games and scored over 200 pts. Maybe not what you hope for from a mid-first rd pick but a solid career.

 

[SA16]

Korpikoski was not a bust. He played over 600 NHL games and scored over 200 pts. Maybe not what you hope for from a mid-first rd pick but a solid career.

Korpikoski was consistently a bad player and you would have been better off having a replacement player on your team than him. In my book, that is a bust. The fact that teams kept giving him opportunity doesn't change that. If the Rangers/other teams keep playing Howden and he lasts 600 games at the same level I would consider him a bust too. Same goes for Jack Johnson who has been terrible pretty much from the moment he set foot in the league but teams just kept on playing him .

 

[True Blue]

No, we have more young assets than we ever had before. That's a good thing. Who said it wasn't?

So then why conflate him with Sather?

I think we've certainly had either Sather or the guy Sather hired for the last 21 years, so use that.

Boy, I can't wait to see that list of Hart finalists.

Again, I fail to see what Sather has to do with the discussion. You already admitted that we have more young assets. Or are they not better than ever before?

You want to see Hart finalists. First of all, they take a while to develop. Second of all, you probably need some serious draft equity and when during the course of a decade, you have had 4 years without a first round pick and two without a first or second round pick, one would guess that makes drafting and developing said Hart finalists a bit more difficult.

Or is the issue that you are finding fault that Gorton has not drafted or developed a Hart finalist, draft position and round be damned?

Like, I'm not trying to be obtuse or negative or anything like that. But again, the idea that this is something the Rangers want to improve is consensus. It's why we did a rebuild. Management themselves are aware of it, and that is also a good thing.

Again, must be the crowd you hand in. Most people that I know of are happy as a pig in slop as to the drafting during the last 10 years or so. Especially given how many draft picks were traded away. And are pretty happy with the way that the current crop of youngsters is being developed.

 

[True Blue]

[QUOTE="KirkAlbuquerque], post: 176087344, member: 222[/QUOTE]
Until you can actually learn to debate the points presented to you, maybe pictures are the way to go I guess?

 

[Larrybiv]

Back to Alexei, this may be a case of the hockey Gods appearing. With hopefully only 2 weeks of Panarin gone, this should absolutely give Laf the chance to make his mark. Huge opportunity that was slowly coming, but now maybe in fast forward mode, which is what we all had hoped for.
By no means am I suggesting he is "replacing" Artemi, but man this is his chance, and maybe set the table for that "Captaincy" that many have predicted. Leadership, and it starts with exceptional on ice "bringing it" type performance
This team will be better in the long run and add additional unification by losing Artemi, as every really good team goes through trials and tribulations. Once hurdled, they should be better for it.

 

[True Blue]

he issue hasn't morphed at all for me. That's always what this thread has been about - we're talking about Alexis Lafreniere for god's sake. Up until very recently this thread has been mostly devoted to comparing him to other recent 1 and 2OAs, not to the last batch of Ranger youth.

But again, you talk about a sample size of 2. I am talking about a sample size of 30+ years worth of draft picks. Yes, these are the only top 2 picks they have had, and I am very, very happy they were finally lucky enough to have them. But, it seems like many (most?) other teams over that timespan have managed to produce at least one top tier player with picks worse than ours, or without picking at all.

The question is why, and because this is the case, I will remain cautiously optimistic at best until our can't miss prospects actually don't miss.

So now we have expanded the sample size to 30+ years. So then why not take it further? Let's go back to the 70's and Middleton and start to evaluate the drafting choices of Francis as they are very germane to the conversation. Or let's go back to Leetch. Or Kovalev. Or Zubov. Or Amonte. Do they not count as top tier players? Does Fox not count as a top-tier player today?

You want to talk about historical drafting or drafting and developing under the current regime?

 

[True Blue]

The lockout of 2004-05 always seems like a good line of demarcation to me for the "new school," NHL to a certain degree. The Rangers did business way differently pre and post lockout in terms of their approach to team building.

I do not disagree with this. But that still covers two different regimes and approaches. And that is fine, but still a fact. What and how and for what reason Sather did what he did is far different than Gorton.

 

[nyr2k2]

I do not disagree with this. But that still covers two different regimes and approaches. And that is fine, but still a fact. What and how and for what reason Sather did what he did is far different than Gorton.

Gorton became the AGM in 2011 after being the Assistant Director of Player Personnel for three years prior. I think 2011, that's probably the point for me. There was a lot of ink devoted to Gorton's influence beginning around the time he took over as AGM. I remember how ridiculous it was--every time we did something people liked, it was, "This has Gorton's fingerprints all over it!"; when it was something generally unpopular, it was "Sather strikes again!" Even that Eric Staal trade, when Gorton had officially become GM, I remember a lot of people were adamant that Sather was really the one pulling the strings on that.

That stuff was all goofy, but I do think it's reasonable to start looking at the "current regime" as beginning to take shape in 2011. There's the pre-lockout Sather era, then there's the 2005-2011 era, then the 2011-present era. Of course JD joining has altered the dynamics, and maybe you could say this is an entirely different era, but IMO our approach today isn't dramatically different than it was in the few years before JD joined.

 

[CTRanger]

Korpikoski was consistently a bad player and you would have been better off having a replacement player on your team than him. In my book, that is a bust. The fact that teams kept giving him opportunity doesn't change that. If the Rangers/other teams keep playing Howden and he lasts 600 games at the same level I would consider him a bust too. Same goes for Jack Johnson who has been terrible pretty much from the moment he set foot in the league but teams just kept on playing him .

I totally understand what you’re saying. We have different ideas of what the definition of a player to “bust” is.

 

[True Blue]

Another way to put it: They play a safe, boring brand of hockey.

And I suspect that is one of the things "holding back," the kids. They are being drilled into being defensively responsible.

I'm not sure I agree with this approach. Let them go out and be offensive dynamos.

I also can't help but feel this is dicta from management: "We want to make the playoffs now." Quinn or someone else views it as important to keep their jobs.

No the F it isn't! Get Kakko and Lafreniere going, that's literally the main goal.

But that is not what either the stats or the eye test tell you. At all. So the belief that it is holding the kids back is pure bunk. At last check, teams that play safe boring brands of hockey are not doing ridiculously well with high danger shot generation or have expected goals at where they are. Safe brands of boring hockey do not lead teams to outshoot and outchance their opponents on most nights.

Last year, they were not safe. Now they are safe and boring? Under the same coach and with the same system? Give me a break.

But yeah, let's try really hard to ignore all of this and continue to pass of a fake news narrative.

With regards to offensive dynamos, again, you are just feeding your own narrative. GET THEM GOING!! LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT!!!

Sorry but that is an even bigger load of BS than the so called safe, boring brand of hockey. NO COACH ON ANY TEAM IS GOING TO LET TEENAGERS PLAY OUTSIDE THE STRUCTURE OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS IN PLACE. NOT ONE. NO COACH IS GOING TO ALLOW TEENAGERS TO DO WHATEVER THEY FEEL LIKE.

But feel free to believe that, if that is your thing. Probably makes you feel comfortable as it continues to fuel the Quinn/Gorton Derangement Syndrome.

 

[True Blue]

Gorton became the AGM in 2011 after being the Assistant Director of Player Personnel for three years prior. I think 2011, that's probably the point for me. There was a lot of ink devoted to Gorton's influence beginning around the time he took over as AGM. I remember how ridiculous it was--every time we did something people liked, it was, "This has Gorton's fingerprints all over it!"; when it was something generally unpopular, it was "Sather strikes again!" Even that Eric Staal trade, when Gorton had officially become GM, I remember a lot of people were adamant that Sather was really the one pulling the strings on that.

That stuff was all goofy, but I do think it's reasonable to start looking at the "current regime" as beginning to take shape in 2011. There's the pre-lockout Sather era, then there's the 2005-2011 era, then the 2011-present era. Of course JD joining has altered the dynamics, and maybe you could say this is an entirely different era, but IMO our approach today isn't dramatically different than it was in the few years before JD joined.

Could not agree more. Well said

 

[New York RKY]

Petition to change the thread title to Alexis Lefresgu.

 

[True Blue]

Sort of, I shouldn't be talking like I'm some authoritative source but it goes without saying: hockey teams who play preventive defense usually need to sacrifice something along the way. My general impression of the Rangers is they don't generate as many scoring chances per game as most teams, wouldn't be surprised if they're bottom quarter of the league on that front (maybe bottom third). I'd definitely guess they're top quarter (in a good way) in preventing high danger events against.

I'm going by eye test on this one, but I decided to follow the Rangers this year due to interest in your two young big time prospects and my general takeaway is Rangers games are hard to watch...put in another way, the amount of events happening in most games seems low, particularly on transition plays. Perhaps as the season goes along, things could change.

Except that what you are describing has not been happening. The stats bear that out. And considering that they are ranked very well in both expected goals and high danger shot generation, I have no clue how they can also be at the bottom third of scoring generation. In fact, that is pretty much impossible.

If watching how Kakko was blossoming is making the Rangers hard to watch, not really sure of what to tell you except maybe come back next year.