Player Discussion Alexis Lafreniere

[GAGLine]

It’s been heavily alluded to by Larry, Vince, and a few others at this point. You can’t just disregard it.

Can you post a link?

 

[irishlaxburger2]

Can you post a link?

Go back and listen to their podcasts

 

[GAGLine]

Go back and listen to their podcasts

I'm not going to wade through all those podcasts to try to find the specific things you are referencing.

Buchnevich was traded on July 23rd, 2021. Eichel was traded on November 4th, 2021. So, what you're suggesting is that Drury traded Buch to make room for Eichel, and in the 3 1/2 months following that trade, never came close to trading for Eichel. If it's true, then Drury is more of an idiot than I thought when that trade went down.

He could have re-signed Buch and used him as a trade chip to get Eichel. He could have re-signed Buch and traded him elsewhere before any trade protection kicked in. Instead, he traded him for peanuts months before Eichel got traded to a different team.

In the end, we used that cap space on Trocheck, so I buy the idea that Buch was moved so we could bring in a center (and that having both Laf and Kakko meant, theoretically, that we could replace his production), but I don't buy into the idea that it was specifically for Eichel. We were never close to getting Eichel.

 

[irishlaxburger2]

Vince mentioned it on the recent Blueshirts Breakaway podcast he was on. Larry has often said he didn’t actually think Pegula would allow an Eichel to NYR trade, but that it was a large miscalculation on Drury’s part to think it was realistic and make the Buchnevich move.

They opened that space for a reason, and held off on a Mika extension until that October for a reason.

 

[ElLeetch]

I'm not going to wade through all those podcasts to try to find the specific things you are referencing.

Buchnevich was traded on July 23rd, 2021. Eichel was traded on November 4th, 2021. So, what you're suggesting is that Drury traded Buch to make room for Eichel, and in the 3 1/2 months following that trade, never came close to trading for Eichel. If it's true, then Drury is more of an idiot than I thought when that trade went down.

He could have re-signed Buch and used him as a trade chip to get Eichel. He could have re-signed Buch and traded him elsewhere before any trade protection kicked in. Instead, he traded him for peanuts months before Eichel got traded to a different team.

In the end, we used that cap space on Trocheck, so I buy the idea that Buch was moved so we could bring in a center (and that having both Laf and Kakko meant, theoretically, that we could replace his production), but I don't buy into the idea that it was specifically for Eichel. We were never close to getting Eichel.

Or is it more apropos to say we use Strome's cap space for Trocheck?

 

[GAGLine]

Or is it more apropos to say we use Strome's cap space for Trocheck?

That's a good point. Strome was making 4.5 mil. We let him go and signed Trocheck for 5.625 mil.

 

[noncents]

Troch was the strome replacement. buch was traded a year earlier. the two have no relation.

Eichel thing i don't buy. or if i do, it was that Drury was sold something that wasn't real, and bought it fully and made decisions based on bad information. but i still don't really buy it.

Buch was traded to add goodrow and to free up big minutes for young players - a plan which Gallant then refused to accommodate. That was issue 1.

Issue 2 was the value of buch's return, and on this there can be no debate. The talk from brooks and vince and everyone else was that the Rangers HAD to trade him, that there wasn't cap space or minutes. that was bullshit then and was bullshit now, but for some reason the value he got back was aligned with that: as if other teams had the leverage and not the team shopping the 1st line ppg play driving fast big skilled chippy homegrown draft gem f***ing wing.

 

[noncents]

buch was our bratt. our point. you all see that right? i know people are sick of relitigating this but then they continue to say nonsense that justifies it or gets it wrong.

listen i like Drury generally and this was so long ago that it's tough to play history from that decision point forward but he's paid less than his value and trading him, especially for what we got back, may have cost us a cup.

draft picks hit and bust... what you do with your hits is what counts.

 

[McRanger92]

Find a thread on HFNYR that doesnt get taken over by talk about Buchnevich, difficulty: impossible.

 

[bhamill]

Troch was the strome replacement. buch was traded a year earlier. the two have no relation.

Eichel thing i don't buy. or if i do, it was that Drury was sold something that wasn't real, and bought it fully and made decisions based on bad information. but i still don't really buy it.

Buch was traded to add goodrow and to free up big minutes for young players - a plan which Gallant then refused to accommodate. That was issue 1.

Issue 2 was the value of buch's return, and on this there can be no debate. The talk from brooks and vince and everyone else was that the Rangers HAD to trade him, that there wasn't cap space or minutes. that was bullshit then and was bullshit now, but for some reason the value he got back was aligned with that: as if other teams had the leverage and not the team shopping the 1st line ppg play driving fast big skilled chippy homegrown draft gem f***ing wing.

Why are you still pretending Buch was a PPG player for us? hahahaha. It was a bad trade. We all agree, but Buch wasn't the player here that he became in STL, where two of his 3 seasons he was PPG before slipping back this year.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

It took 2 years. They tried him with Panarin (and Tro) at the start of 22-23 and it was shit so GG went back to the Kid Line that everyone was clamoring for

It wasn’t really shit.

They were one of the only combos that produced any offense, they just gave up as much as they created.

Their outputs were better this year obviously but that was a line that didn’t really get enough of a chance to cook because Gallant had ideas that he loved in his head that he always went back to no matter how bad they were.

 

[Machinehead]

It wasn’t really shit.

They were one of the only combos that produced any offense, they just gave up as much as they created.

Their outputs were better this year obviously but that was a line that didn’t really get enough of a chance to cook because Gallant had ideas that he loved in his head that he always went back to no matter how bad they were.

Remember when Kreider-Trocheck-Kane had like an 8000000000% xGF and then Gallant went back to Kreider-Zibanejad-Tarasenko and Panarin-Trocheck-Kane because pineapples?

 

[will1066]

Remember when Kreider-Trocheck-Kane had like an 8000000000% xGF and then Gallant went back to Kreider-Zibanejad-Tarasenko and Panarin-Trocheck-Kane because pineapples?

Pineapples are prickly. Like HFNYR.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Even if the Eichel thing is true (and it very well may be), I'm not sure it really tells us a lot other than Drury was a bit too eager as a fresh GM. Naive move from him as a first timer.

 

[will1066]

I guess some people will believe that force-feeding someone will speed up his development, and there are others who think that giving someone time to cook before throwing him with the adults is better. The flaw with imprinting Panarin-Tro-Laf of this past season to the prior one is that the coaching staff was different and the players themselves were different. Especially for Trocheck, who had just come onto a new team and environment.

 

[noncents]

Why are you still pretending Buch was a PPG player for us? hahahaha. It was a bad trade. We all agree, but Buch wasn't the player here that he became in STL, where two of his 3 seasons he was PPG before slipping back this year.

"buch wasn't the player here that he became in stl" is the same ridiculous anti logic that was the foundation of the push to move lafreniere before he broke out this year.

the entire idea of cap management and asset management is to evaluate players on the basis of what they are under the hood, and what the could continue to become, rather than what they produce on a ppg basis.

you're looking at buchnevichs point totals and seemingly ignoring the bigger picture.

the fact is that buchnevich WAS the player here that he has continued to become in STL. his production wasn't on the same level, but I and many others understood that he was, among other things, the play driving force on the Zibanejad line. analytics showed it even then - 93 relied on 89 at even strength.

93's lack of even strength production is literally the same issue we have bemoaned every season since.


people just didn't see buchnevichs value because they thought he was lazy, or that he should have produced more, or because he wasn't north american.

it's literally the same reason fans wanted laf gone. the same reason they want to trade kakko for pennies. there's no acknowledgement of value beyond production.

Laf was showing signs of his breakout the past 2 years. Buch was already there and getting better.

You don't trade that kind of value because you can't find it. You Especially don't trade it for sammy blais

 

[JohnC]

Even if the Eichel thing is true (and it very well may be), I'm not sure it really tells us a lot other than Drury was a bit too eager as a fresh GM. Naive move from him as a first timer.

This is the first time I’ve read that Eichel thing in the 3 years since the Buch trade. It’s definitely not true.

 

[bhamill]

"buch wasn't the player here that he became in stl" is the same ridiculous anti logic that was the foundation of the push to move lafreniere before he broke out this year.

the entire idea of cap management and asset management is to evaluate players on the basis of what they are under the hood, and what the could continue to become, rather than what they produce on a ppg basis.

you're looking at buchnevichs point totals and seemingly ignoring the bigger picture.

the fact is that buchnevich WAS the player here that he has continued to become in STL. his production wasn't on the same level, but I and many others understood that he was, among other things, the play driving force on the Zibanejad line. analytics showed it even then - 93 relied on 89 at even strength.

93's lack of even strength production is literally the same issue we have bemoaned every season since.


people just didn't see buchnevichs value because they thought he was lazy, or that he should have produced more, or because he wasn't north american.

it's literally the same reason fans wanted laf gone. the same reason they want to trade kakko for pennies. there's no acknowledgement of value beyond production.

Laf was showing signs of his breakout the past 2 years. Buch was already there and getting better.

You don't trade that kind of value because you can't find it. You Especially don't trade it for sammy blais

Are you really equating trading a 26 year old Buch, who was due a raise, with people wanting to trade 21 year old, cost controlled Laf? Come on. Hahahaha. Apples and Ostriches.

I'm simply looking at Buchnevich's numbers, they are readily available, and HE WAS NEVER A PPG PLAYER FOR US. Period. Those are the objective stats. His three best years were 0.88, 0.67 and 0.59. You may as well call a guy who scored 29 goals, 33 goals and 44 goals a 50 goal scorer...

And I also said that we ALL agree it was a bad trade, why are you arguing against a position I never took? Again, it WAS A BAD TRADE. We ALL know that. NO ONE is saying otherwise. I just think its hysterical that you seem to need for it to have been even worse than it was.

 

[Levitate]

Why are you still pretending Buch was a PPG player for us? hahahaha. It was a bad trade. We all agree, but Buch wasn't the player here that he became in STL, where two of his 3 seasons he was PPG before slipping back this year.

it was a shortened year but he had 48 points in 54 games the year before he was trading and I think to most people it was obvious he was trending upwards. I don't think there was a huge surprise that he hit a point per game after that

however I think there were a lot of cap questions that offseason and he was seen as a guy they could "replace" with their new shiny high draft picks without having to pay him a lot. Unfortunately not great in retrospect! Wish something else could have been done

I also think he's a guy that NA coaches and GMs seem to kinda not like at times

 

[bhamill]

it was a shortened year but he had 48 points in 54 games the year before he was trading and I think to most people it was obvious he was trending upwards. I don't think there was a huge surprise that he hit a point per game after that

however I think there were a lot of cap questions that offseason and he was seen as a guy they could "replace" with their new shiny high draft picks without having to pay him a lot. Unfortunately not great in retrospect! Wish something else could have been done

I also think he's a guy that NA coaches and GMs seem to kinda not like at times

His last three seasons were 0.59, 0.67, and 0.88 PPG. Yes, you can certainly say he was trending upwards. What you can't truthfully/accurately say is that he was a PPG player. This is akin to a guy having 29, 33, and 44 goal seasons and referring to him as a 50 goal scorer. It's just plain wrong.

 

[Peltz]

Find a thread on HFNYR that doesnt get taken over by talk about Buchnevich, difficulty: impossible.

It's going to be the trade that defines this era of Rangers hockey. Think about it, every single TDL has been affected by the aftermath of this trade. We have sought right wingers every year since then.

Zib has lacked in his 5v5 point totals since then as well. You simply can't fairly rate this GM's tenure without discussing Buchnevich. He's a home grown player that was sold after turning into a top 6 guy.

What do you want from us? Until there's really good RW on the first line, the Buchnevich trade will continue to be discussed, and deservedly so.

 

[McRanger92]

It's going to be the trade that defines this era of Rangers hockey. Think about it, every single TDL has been affected by the aftermath of this trade. We have sought right wingers every year since then.

Zib has lacked in his 5v5 point totals since then as well. You simply can't fairly rate this GM's tenure without discussing Buchnevich. He's a home grown player that was sold after turning into a top 6 guy.

What do you want from us? Until there's really good RW on the first line, the Buchnevich trade will continue to be discussed, and deservedly so.

Yeah its unfortunate we fell into the cellar when we traded a living legend like Buchnevich . Cant it just be a bad trade like every team makes instead of acting like it destroyed the franchise? Zibanejad had more 5v5 points last year than in any season playing with Buch and his 5v5 rates are virtually unchanged in the years since 89 left (outside of the down year this year which was by far the worst of his entire career). You're all living in the past, and this is coming from a guy who was vocally in favor of re-acquiring him at this deadline. But oh no! The precious assets! lol

Lets go back to discussing Lafreniere emerging as a franchise player, shall we?

 

[RempireStateBuilding]

"buch wasn't the player here that he became in stl" is the same ridiculous anti logic that was the foundation of the push to move lafreniere before he broke out this year.

the entire idea of cap management and asset management is to evaluate players on the basis of what they are under the hood, and what the could continue to become, rather than what they produce on a ppg basis.

you're looking at buchnevichs point totals and seemingly ignoring the bigger picture.

the fact is that buchnevich WAS the player here that he has continued to become in STL. his production wasn't on the same level, but I and many others understood that he was, among other things, the play driving force on the Zibanejad line. analytics showed it even then - 93 relied on 89 at even strength.

93's lack of even strength production is literally the same issue we have bemoaned every season since.


people just didn't see buchnevichs value because they thought he was lazy, or that he should have produced more, or because he wasn't north american.

it's literally the same reason fans wanted laf gone. the same reason they want to trade kakko for pennies. there's no acknowledgement of value beyond production.

Laf was showing signs of his breakout the past 2 years. Buch was already there and getting better.

You don't trade that kind of value because you can't find it. You Especially don't trade it for sammy blais

Laf absolutely did not show signs of this breakout year. He showed some flashes here and there. You can't deny he had the talent, but nothing ever came together for more than a few games at any given time, opportunities or not. Nothing indicated he'd actually grab the fkn bull by the horns like he did this season and break out. Like you said, Buch was way farther along development-wise and was already in the middle of a big upswing. Trading Buch and the return NYR got was awful all around given where he was. There are about 15 other players I'd move off that 2020-21 squad to make room for him.

If Kakko is on the same general path as Laf of knowing what to do but not yet being able to put everything together, that's great and there's certainly still hope with how young he is. I would love nothing more than for Kakko to do the same thing next year that Laf did this year. But to me, there's nothing to really indicate that Kakko *will* put everything together. He's a solid possession guy, but I still don't think Kakko or the team really know what player he's trying to be, wants to be, or actually can be. A lot of people have said it - He needs to be stapled to the PK next season.

Being a post-season healthy scratch across two different coaching staffs in big time games is not a good look at all. The fact that Matt Rempe's 10 minutes was what replaced Kakko..I just don't see it happening with Kakko unfortunately, and I don't think the organization does either.

 

[xsniper11x]

Assuming Goodrow is gone, does Laf get his A? Or Trocheck?

 

[noncents]

Are you really equating trading a 26 year old Buch, who was due a raise, with people wanting to trade 21 year old, cost controlled Laf? Come on. Hahahaha. Apples and Ostriches.

I'm simply looking at Buchnevich's numbers, they are readily available, and HE WAS NEVER A PPG PLAYER FOR US. Period. Those are the objective stats. His three best years were 0.88, 0.67 and 0.59. You may as well call a guy who scored 29 goals, 33 goals and 44 goals a 50 goal scorer...

And I also said that we ALL agree it was a bad trade, why are you arguing against a position I never took? Again, it WAS A BAD TRADE. We ALL know that. NO ONE is saying otherwise. I just think its hysterical that you seem to need for it to have been even worse than it was.

You're fixated on my use of "PPG" to describe buchnevich when he never put up a point per game for NYR. this is a semantic dispute and not germane.