Confirmed with Link: Alexis Lafreniere Signs Extension [7Y/7.45M AAV]

[mas0764]

I'm not saying there's no future, nor did I say "who cares?"

Well you said "There is no long term."

That's false no matter how you couch it.

I'm saying the goal THIS SEASON is to win it all.

And as I explained above, there is no sacrifice to that goal by either integrating Lafreniere into PP1 about a third of the time, or, conversely, as you said would be ok and as I said would be acceptable, if they rolled out PP2 to start the power play about a quarter to a third of the time.

You can always go back to PP1 getting it's regular assignments or it's regular configuration as the playoffs get closer. PP2 getting the starts isn't going to seriously wreck our record.

Yes, the goal this season is to win it all, not just get the 1 seed.

Lafreniere and/or PP2 getting hot furthers the goal of winning it all, while also developing the future.

The cost to the present is basically zero. It would be a better argument that the minutes can't be spared to the kids if we were in a dogfight for a playoff spot. Instead, we are basically a lock.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Well you said "There is no long term."

That's false no matter how you couch it.

Again, I said there was no long-term this year. And again, this year should be about this year and this year only.

And as I explained above, there is no sacrifice to that goal by either integrating Lafreniere into PP1 about a third of the time, or, conversely, as you said would be ok and as I said would be acceptable, if they rolled out PP2 to start the power play about a quarter to a third of the time.

You can always go back to PP1 getting it's regular assignments or it's regular configuration as the playoffs get closer. PP2 getting the starts isn't going to seriously wreck our record.

Yes, the goal this season is to win it all, not just get the 1 seed.

Lafreniere and/or PP2 getting hot furthers the goal of winning it all, while also developing the future.

The cost to the present is basically zero. It would be a better argument that the minutes can't be spared to the kids if we were in a dogfight for a playoff spot. Instead, we are basically a lock.

Please show me a coach or point to an instance where a team disrupted the second ranked PP in the league, a third of the time, just to fit one player in. A player that currently has no real role on that unit and where only guy he could conceivably replace is a C who shoots right-handed. You wanna split time more evenly between the two units, that's a great idea. But don't start messing with personal unless you absolutely have to.

 

[mrmovies779]

this conversation has been fun to read....as you were,gents!

 

[bhamill]

There is no long-term. This team as constructed has another year or two to win a Cup. I'm cool with starting the 2nd PP unit from time to time, limiting PP 1's time to a minute per (although sometimes it's hard because they have the puck in the zone the entire time). But there is not a coach on this planet that's going to start messing with personal on the 2nd ranked PP in the league. Not to mention, replacing ZIb for him is stupid because it messes with the entire structure, you're not replacing Trochek because he's the main guy taking draws, you're not taking out Panarin, you're not taking out Kreider, and you're definitely not taking Fox out. All you're doing is making PP 1 worse, because... the future.

Okay. Yeah, the team will cease to exist in three years...
But "long term" also means later this season AND THE POST SEASON... AGAIN our PP shit the bed last post season, and I just happen to think it would be a good idea to have contingencies for that. I don't care what YOU believe NHL coaches would or would not do. And again, you are more worried about the PP becoming "worse," which is impossible to know until we give it a good look, than you are about winning games or playoff series'. If it doesn't score quite as much when we are up 3 goals half way through the third, who gives a f***? We will likely win the game either way. I don't give half of a shit whether the PP initially drops from 30% to 25% on those late powerplays. I don't give a shit if we end up with the 10th ranked PP in the league rather than 1st, as long as we are still winning those games. Its all upside and no downside as far as my priority: winning.

 

[bhamill]

I believe the point of forcing Laf PP mins during this regular season is to boost his game and confidence futher so come this year's POs he's a better player than he is currently
Im not sure the minor boost Laf would get is worth the risk of losing some close games which could result in not being the #1 seed
Come POs, its really gonna come down to Panarin, Mika, our D and Igor

Integrating new looks onto the PP, whether Laf or someone else, late in games we are in control of will cost us little to nothing. We don't look like the #1 seed either way, but it sure didn't get Boston past the first round last year...

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Okay. Yeah, the team will cease to exist in three years...
But "long term" also means later this season AND THE POST SEASON... AGAIN our PP shit the bed last post season, and I just happen to think it would be a good idea to have contingencies for that. I don't care what YOU believe NHL coaches would or would not do. And again, you are more worried about the PP becoming "worse," which is impossible to know until we give it a good look, than you are about winning games or playoff series'. If it doesn't score quite as much when we are up 3 goals half way through the third, who gives a f***? We will likely win the game either way. I don't give half of a shit whether the PP initially drops from 30% to 25% on those late powerplays. I don't give a shit if we end up with the 10th ranked PP in the league rather than 1st, as long as we are still winning those games. Its all upside and no downside as far as my priority: winning.

You care about his stat line, that's all.

 

[bhamill]

Message Board GMs have the luxury of not losing their jobs if the team doesnt win.

Sure. But if we are talking about situational, late in games we are in control of, how is the team not winning because of it? And we lost in the first round last year in great part because we had no PP1 backup plan... how is that helping job security?

 

[bhamill]

You care about his stat line, that's all.

Nope, you have no rational counter, so you are basically calling me a liar. It's a disingenuous bullshit tact, personally I would have hoped that nonsense beneath you. I am actually fine with Laf's numbers this year. It's great progress. Show me ONE post where I have expressed concern or said we need to get him more points?
It's about WINNING.

 

[McRanger92]

Sure. But if we are talking about situational, late in games we are in control of, how is the team not winning because of it? And we lost in the first round last year in great part because we had no PP1 backup plan... how is that helping job security?

I mean they can try it but I don’t think it would make much of a difference. Maybe increase Lafreniere’s contract demands in 2 summers lol

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Nope, you have no rational counter, so you are basically calling me a liar. It's a disingenuous bullshit tact, personally I would have hoped that nonsense beneath you. I am actually fine with Laf's numbers this year. It's great progress. Show me ONE post where I have expressed concern or said we need to get him more points?
It's about WINNING.

I gave you tons of rational counters down to each player. First, it was all about Laff's confidence, now it's about different looks late in the game. It's all silly. There's no need to f*** with the first unit. There really isn't other than pumping stats to say, "see, he's not a bust!"

 

[bhamill]

I mean they can try it but I don’t think it would make much of a difference. Maybe increase Lafreniere’s contract demands in 2 summers lol

Hahaha. The only thing good about his slow development and I want to ruin it!
I mean it doesn't have to be Laf, I just think we need contingencies, and he's been the best Offensive player not already ON PP1.

 

[McRanger92]

Hahaha. The only thing good about his slow development and I want to ruin it!
I mean it doesn't have to be Laf, I just think we need contingencies, and he's been the best Offensive player not already ON PP1.

I think PP2 gets a lot more ice time once Chytil is back and replaces Brodzinski. But in close games I want the main 5 playing as much as possible.

 

[bhamill]

I gave you tons of rational counters down to each player. First, it was all about Laff's confidence, now it's about different looks late in the game. It's all silly. There's no need to f*** with the first unit. There really isn't other than pumping stats to say, "see, he's not a bust!"

Your counters only make sense if I was suggesting a full time change to the PP, which, once again, I am not.
I already know Laf is not a bust, that has zero to do with it. Would I love to see Laf get to the PPG level? Sure. (and I think he eventually will) I'd love Kakko to also, and lots of other players. We ALL want high scoring players on our team, no? But that's not what this is about. You really should stop pretending to know what I want better than I do.

I think PP2 gets a lot more ice time once Chytil is back and replaces Brodzinski. But in close games I want the main 5 playing as much as possible.

I am not advocating f***ing with the PP in close games. We are on the same page there.

 

[Psycho for Perreault]

Why does the idea that putting Laf on the PP mean it's worse? No reason to think it wouldn't improve. This isn't the last few years where we wanted the kids to get minutes for minutes sake. Laf EARNED it. When he's on the ice, we are in a better spot. That means we should....put him on the ice more.

Laf Tro and Panarin look like a PP when it's 5v5. Would be fun to see it 5v4 with Fox as part of it too.

 

[mas0764]

Again, I said there was no long-term this year. And again, this year should be about this year and this year only.

Good thing my suggestion helps this year and the future with essentially no harm done to this year's chances then.

But you are still incorrect, it's never about "this year only." There is always next year to consider.

For example, if Chicago offered us Bedard for Panarin, you simply must do that.

Please show me a coach or point to an instance where a team disrupted the second ranked PP in the league, a third of the time, just to fit one player in.

Irrelevant.

A player that currently has no real role on that unit and where only guy he could conceivably replace is a C who shoots right-handed. You wanna split time more evenly between the two units, that's a great idea. But don't start messing with personal unless you absolutely have to.

Like I said... I could live with splitting the time more.

But some exposure is necessary for these guys.

I get we want to win now. Where it doesn't make sense is that in every game where we are up 2-1 or 3-2 or even tied 2-2, the PP1 has to get all the minutes.

Not every random game against Florida or Ottawa or Detroit or Columbus needs to be a "we have to score on this PP to win this game" moment. Let PP2 have a shot some of the time.

"Winning it all" means winning the war. Not winning every single skirmish or battle at all costs. Sometimes you cede a battle to win the war.

 

[McRanger92]

Why does the idea that putting Laf on the PP mean it's worse? No reason to think it wouldn't improve. This isn't the last few years where we wanted the kids to get minutes for minutes sake. Laf EARNED it. When he's on the ice, we are in a better spot. That means we should....put him on the ice more.

Laf Tro and Panarin look like a PP when it's 5v5. Would be fun to see it 5v4 with Fox as part of it too.

I mean the room for improvement would be 2nd to 1st in the league. Not sure that’s worth making the change for Lafeniere’s stat line.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Your counters only make sense if I was suggesting a full time change to the PP, which, once again, I am not.
I already know Laf is not a bust, that has zero to do with it. Would I love to see Laf get to the PPG level? Sure. (and I think he eventually will) I'd love Kakko to also, and lots of other players. We ALL want high scoring players on our team, no? But that's not what this is about. You really should stop pretending to know what I want better than I do.


I am not advocating f***ing with the PP in close games. We are on the same page there.

I'm not pretending anything but you've been screaming about putting Laff on the PP for two seasons now. Last year was all about his confidence. This year it for a "different look." I just don't think there's many coaches willing to break up a successful unit that's been together for a bunch of years just to do that. And again, the only guy he can realistically replace is a center who shoots the opposite of him. So you're not really inserting just one guy, you're completely changing the structure and dynamic of the unit and how they attack.

 

[Psycho for Perreault]

I mean the room for improvement would be 2nd to 1st in the league. Not sure that’s worth making the change for Lafeniere’s stat line.

I admit that 2nd to 1st doesn't sound worth it. We are hitting at 30%? That could be 100%. Wow. Lots of room for growth.

 

[bhamill]

I'm not pretending anything but you've been screaming about putting Laff on the PP for two seasons now. Last year was all about his confidence. This year it for a "different look." I just don't think there's many coaches willing to break up a successful unit that's been together for a bunch of years just to do that. And again, the only guy he can realistically replace is a center who shoots the opposite of him. So you're not really inserting just one guy, you're completely changing the structure and dynamic of the unit and how they attack.

I think you have me confused with someone else. For the last few years I've been saying that putting Laf on the PP (and giving other responsibilities/opportunities a 1OA usually gets) would be beneficial for his confidence/game/development, but that I understood why a non bottom feeder team such as us would not do that. Find ONE quote where I said anything differently. I dare you. Hahaha. I always said we cant have our cake and eat it too. You want faster development? It would mean growing pains that a team in win mode probably wants to minimize.
After last playoffs' loss to the Devils I think it's obvious we need contingencies for PP1. We scored 4 PPG in winning the first two games then 1 PPG in the next 5 games. We lost in OT in game 3 where we went 0 for 4 on PPs. The only other game we won was the one where Kreids potted the other PPG. With Laf's development this year as one of our best forwards, he's a good candidate for different looks on the PP... But it doesn't even HAVE to be him. I've said as much on this very thread. We need contingencies. You just seem to have this fear that trying different PP looks in low risk situations will somehow irrevocably destroy the PP... I don't see it that way.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Good thing my suggestion helps this year and the future with essentially no harm done to this year's chances then.

But you are still incorrect, it's never about "this year only." There is always next year to consider.

For example, if Chicago offered us Bedard for Panarin, you simply must do that.

Good GMs know when to strike and when to wait another season. I do not think there is a young player in Hartford or with the big club (except for Laff and maybe Kakko) that's untouchable if the right deal came along, this season. Sometimes you gotta push all your chips in the middle. But, your example is just ridiculous with no basis in reality. Why stop there? See if Drury can swing Kreider for McDavid too!

Irrelevant.

And this goes back to thinking you're smarter than every professional hockey person.

Like I said... I could live with splitting the time more.

But some exposure is necessary for these guys.

I get we want to win now. Where it doesn't make sense is that in every game where we are up 2-1 or 3-2 or even tied 2-2, the PP1 has to get all the minutes.

Not every random game against Florida or Ottawa or Detroit or Columbus needs to be a "we have to score on this PP to win this game" moment. Let PP2 have a shot some of the time.

"Winning it all" means winning the war. Not winning every single skirmish or battle at all costs. Sometimes you cede a battle to win the war.

This I actually agree with. But that's not the discussion. The discussion is messing with PP 1 to accommodate Laff.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I think you have me confused with someone else. For the last few years I've been saying that putting Laf on the PP (and giving other responsibilities/opportunities a 1OA usually gets) would be beneficial for his confidence/game/development, but that I understood why a non bottom feeder team such as us would not do that. Find ONE quote where I said anything differently. I dare you. Hahaha. I always said we cant have our cake and eat it too. You want faster development? It would mean growing pains that a team in win mode probably wants to minimize.
After last playoffs' loss to the Devils I think it's obvious we need contingencies for PP1. We scored 4 PPG in winning the first two games then 1 PPG in the next 5 games. We lost in OT in game 3 where we went 0 for 4 on PPs. The only other game we won was the one where Kreids potted the other PPG. With Laf's development this year as one of our best forwards, he's a good candidate for different looks on the PP... But it doesn't even HAVE to be him. I've said as much on this very thread. We need contingencies. You just seem to have this fear that trying different PP looks in low risk situations will somehow irrevocably destroy the PP... I don't see it that way.

My friend, we had a conversation a few months ago where I said the biggest difference between Laff this year and last, and the reason why he finally found some success, was due to his improved skating and you scoffed and told me he had a shitty preseason and it wasn't his skating but his confidence. Even though, he himself said he worked hard on improving his skating in the offseason. Whatever, I'm all for distributing ice-team between the two units better. I'm not for putting a guy, who is replacing a right-handed shot and completely changing the dynamics of the unit, in for the sake of putting him in or for a different look. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

 

[GAGLine]

How did he find his confidence this year with no meaningful PP time then? You guys should just be honest and admit you want him there just to pad his stats.

While I think there is some truth to your claim about the motives, I believe meaningful PP time helps players with confidence. Obviously Laf has gotten to this point without it, but where might he be if he had gotten it from day 1? Maybe he'd still be where he is now but would have gotten their sooner. Or maybe he'd be advanced of where his is right now. We'll never know, but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that he would have benefited from it.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

While I think there is some truth to your claim about the motives, I believe meaningful PP time helps players with confidence. Obviously Laf has gotten to this point without it, but where might he be if he had gotten it from day 1? Maybe he'd still be where he is now but would have gotten their sooner. Or maybe he'd be advanced of where his is right now. We'll never know, but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that he would have benefited from it.

I definitely think he could have benefitted from it but I think what he really benefitted from is improved skating. Maybe I'm an idiot but the difference between last year and this year is night and day. How many times did he get caught last season or just closed off along the boards because he wasn't quick enough? Maybe it's less about skating and more about improved conditioning but there were rumblings at the end of last season that he wasn't taking his career serious enough. There was truth to it. It's just an odd thing that he came to a team with a lethal PP. But at the end of the day, he's getting pretty much the same PP usage this year that he got last year and he's a completely different player. It's not even close.

 

[mas0764]

Good GMs know when to strike and when to wait another season. I do not think there is a young player in Hartford or with the big club (except for Laff and maybe Kakko) that's untouchable if the right deal came along, this season. Sometimes you gotta push all your chips in the middle. But, your example is just ridiculous with no basis in reality. Why stop there? See if Drury can swing Kreider for McDavid too!

My example was deliberately ridiculous. It demonstrates that obviously under any circumstance you always would trade present for future, even if by trading the present you sink your chances at a Cup (as there is no way we win a Cup this year without Panarin). But sometimes the future payoff (an elite 1C for the next two decades) is too much of a payoff to turn down.

Obviously that example is extreme. But the "there's no tomorrow" mentality is demonstrably false and equally foolish to ignore strong future returns. It overestimates the chances of winning this year (what, 5%?) and clings to that slim chance at the expense of greatly increasing future chances. Especially when you consider that if you are getting a future asset, you really have to weight the CUMULATIVE future chances. Like, what do you think the odds are that Bedard wins a Cup in his career sometime, at all? Probably north of 25% if not greater. The max odds the Rangers could POSSIBLY have of winning a Cup this year cannot be greater than single digits.

I'd trade Trouba right this second if the Flyers called up and offered Michkov, for example. I don't care if it creates a hole in our defense that we can't really overcome this season.

And this goes back to thinking you're smarter than every professional hockey person.

I know that you and me both are smarter than many professional hockey persons.

What they do is not rocket science. I'm not sure why this is such a shocking revelation. Many of them are morons. Most are former players.

Yes, I'm smarter than most ex athletes. So are you (probably). There are definitely people on this board who could do a better job with a modicum of lead-up training for the job and being handed the right contacts. Athletes are not the sages of society.

I have more shocking news for you - we are both probably smarter than most movie stars and singers too.

This I actually agree with. But that's not the discussion. The discussion is messing with PP 1 to accommodate Laff.

Eh, I think the discussion is more along the lines of getting Laf PP time in general.

I think the ideal is getting him on PP1 but if the coach took steps to get him on PP2 and to get PP2 meaningful opportunities, this topic would definitely cool off.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Eh, I think the discussion is more along the lines of getting Laf PP time in general.

I think the ideal is getting him on PP1 but if the coach took steps to get him on PP2 and to get PP2 meaningful opportunities, this topic would definitely cool off.

I think the ideal is splitting ice time between the two units better. But it's hard when the first unit is in the o-zone for the majority of the time.