All Encompassing Tortorella..ella..ella..eh..eh...and Glen Cigar Thread Part IV

[tjs252]

Also, regarding Tortorella (who I am admittedly no longer a fan of, if for no other reason than perpetually trying to jam a square peg into a round hole is madness) I would have gladly said, around February when Gaborik was still here, that anything resulting in Tortorella's firing would have been OK with me as the talent (albeit top-heavy) was unquestionably there to win a cup.

Now? We absolutely have a "Torts" team (especially when Zucc is not retained), and I don't think there is anything a new coach can/could do to this roster. Nash is not a franchise winger, Girardi cannot carry a line by himself and Callahan is a top of the line bottom 6 forward. That's not to say anything is "wrong" with those players, just that the way they have been repeatedly exposed against good to great competition suggests we're hoping for over-achievement from far too many players to make it work.

Is it on Torts that he takes the little bit of skill we have and asks them to ugly it up? (Just watching Brassard and Nash play in the corners makes me want to scream) Absolutely, but a new guy isn't going to fix nearly enough to save next year, and that's another huge problem. Lundqvist is 31. You figure 2-3 more years is all you can absolutely count on, beyond that it's a stretch to simply assume greatness.

 

[NYR Viper]

Except, for all intents and purposes, Richards' deal was "6 years." It wasn't until the new cap-recapture provision (which I don't think anyone truly expected) that these long "retirement" contracts became an issue. The Richards signing, at least in the manner in was done (heavy front-load, retirement incentive in the final three years) was arguably the smartest thing Sather has done on the free-agent market. The player we wanted at the position we needed in a way that allowed the Rangers to flex their financial might even in a hard cap league.

Also, you cannot define seasons based upon hindsight, not in a hard cap league. This year and next were/are our "window" with so many critical RFA's and UFA's. You cannot have the "window" and then call it transition.

I think ti was mentioned multiple times that many teams and owners wanted to get rid of the cap circumvention type contracts.

Why is the window closing? The goal should be to compete for a Cup EVERY YEAR. Not just for (2) years.

Trading depth for 1 player is definitely going for it. The problem is that the Rangers didn't yet have the depth to trade. The Nash trade was a failure from the very moment it happened.

First, it was a failure to recognize the things that made us successful last season. We had a team that played as greater than the sum of it's parts. The only way that happens is with team chemistry. I'm not just talking about on-ice chemistry, I'm talking about a group of guys all bought in on working towards the same goal in the same manner and the camaraderie that comes with that. Did anyone really expect that we were going to turn over more than a quarter of our forward group and maintain that level of chemistry? I, for one, did not. Tortorella has mentioned on a few occasions how it felt like we spent this season without an identity. It was definitely a symptom of the new faces combined with the lack of training camp and the short season.

Second, and this ties into the first, we did not yet have the internal depth to make this kind of move work. One year down the road, with Kreider, Miller, Thomas, and McIlrath a year further along in their professional careers, you probably would. Then, after your deplete your depth on the NHL roster making the trade, you plug-and-play guys who are already Rangers, even if they spent the whole year in Hartford being indoctrinated into the organization. That's how a modern NHL organization acts. Sather was just too trigger happy.

I think that when a player like Nash becomes available, you make the move. It may have been hard to handle this season but in the long-term of the deal, players like Dubinsky, Anisimov and Erixon are MUCH easier to replace than a player like Nash.

That's not being trigger happy, that's trading quantity for Quality. It doesn't happen often.

Also, just for everyone's knowledge, the Gaborik trade was an entirely different animal. The Rangers were not going to be able to re-sign him. They had his replacement in house from the trade the prior summer. They maximized an asset who was going to walk for nothing and who was not playing well into (3) assets who will be here for the long-term. That's yet another good trade.

 

[Chaels Arms]

Definitely agree with what you're saying. His stubbornness is his biggest weakness. You simply cannot keep forcing players to play a style that isn't suited for them and expect success.

The transition through the neutral zone is horrendous. They rely far too much on stretch passes, but stretch passes don't mesh with dump-and-chase. When forwards are moving east-west in the neutral zone, they don't have the speed to retrieve the pucks that they dump in. We need our defenders to be able to gain some ground in the neutral zone before making a pass, so that the forwards can get in on the forecheck. Marc Staal is fantastic at rushing the puck into the zone, or gaining the red line with speed in order to maximize the attack for other players. We really miss that element of his game.

The stretch-pass breakout is an especially bad plan when you factor in that our wingers usually collapse deep into our slot on defense. It's one thing to attempt quick breakouts like that when you're an aggressive team like the Blackhawks and your wingers rarely collapse far below your own blue line. It makes no sense for a team that plays defense like ours. By the time our wingers hit the red line the opposition always has them marked.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Been saying this for years...

...The system is filled with small guys with questionable talent. Big guys with no offensive talent. Defensemen that are one dimensional or still to young to know much about.

So concerned about drafting guys with character that they may have forgotten to draft the guys with the talent needed to win actual hockey games.

Say what you want about Gomez, but at least he could gain the zone, to name one. Everybody loves their lunch-pail kids. What I saw yesterday was the smallish forwards and the D getting abused (like red-haired steps-kids).

The problem with our PP is not a missing (pun intended) 100 mph shot from the point. What we're missing is a dman that can skate laterally with the puck, causing the d to react, thus opening lanes. Anybody see Krug yesterday? A skater like that is what we need manning the point. And some sizzle on Offense. Enough of the plain vanilla character kids.

 

[tjs252]

I think ti was mentioned multiple times that many teams and owners wanted to get rid of the cap circumvention type contracts.

Why is the window closing? The goal should be to compete for a Cup EVERY YEAR. Not just for (2) years.

The window is closing because you have a set amount of money you can allocate to players in a hard cap league. If you have so many critical players set to become free-agents, it makes it harder, if not impossible to keep the team together. If you cannot keep the team together, you count on far too many young/inexperienced/flawed players to fill areas of need and that can be disastrous (i.e., Kreider, Pyatt).

Before the start of the 2014/15 season, the Rangers will have to re-sign every single player on our roster except Richards, Nash, and Staal - with approximately $44 million. Before 2015, it will be every single player except for Richards and Nash. That, in a hard cap league, is the definition of a window, and a window closing.

 

[pld459666]

I think ti was mentioned multiple times that many teams and owners wanted to get rid of the cap circumvention type contracts.

Why is the window closing? The goal should be to compete for a Cup EVERY YEAR. Not just for (2) years.




I think that when a player like Nash becomes available, you make the move. It may have been hard to handle this season but in the long-term of the deal, players like Dubinsky, Anisimov and Erixon are MUCH easier to replace than a player like Nash.

That's not being trigger happy, that's trading quantity for Quality. It doesn't happen often.

Also, just for everyone's knowledge, the Gaborik trade was an entirely different animal. The Rangers were not going to be able to re-sign him. They had his replacement in house from the trade the prior summer. They maximized an asset who was going to walk for nothing and who was not playing well into (3) assets who will be here for the long-term. That's yet another good trade.

Agree with you 100% about moving Gaborik.

Disagree that it needed to be done at the deadline.

Gaborik still has a year left after this one.

The goal when they tried to acquire nash last Feb. was to have two very legit shots at the cup. They couldn't get a deal done and still almost go to the finals.

Then they do get Nash and have to trade Gabby before the PO's?

I like the trade. I believed and have been saying for well over a year that Gaborik WOULD get traded. But doing so before the 2013 draft was a declaration that this Nash-Gaborik experiment was a failure so they tried what we used to call in kindergarden a "do-over"

Get back the lost depth in the Nash trade and hope for the best.

Pathetic

 

[NYR Viper]

The window is closing because you have a set amount of money you can allocate to players in a hard cap league. If you have so many critical players set to become free-agents, it makes it harder, if not impossible to keep the team together. If you cannot keep the team together, you count on far too many young/inexperienced/flawed players to fill areas of need and that can be disastrous (i.e., Kreider, Pyatt).

Before the start of the 2014/15 season, the Rangers will have to re-sign every single player on our roster except Richards, Nash, and Staal - with approximately $44 million. Before 2015, it will be every single player except for Richards and Nash. That, in a hard cap league, is the definition of a window, and a window closing.

With Richards gone, that leaves plenty of money for the Rangers to keep who they want to. I'm not overly worried about that.

Who is getting a monstrous raise after this season (after Stepan, McDonagh, Hagelin get their money)?

Staal and Girardi may get a bit more. MDZ may get a bit more. Hank won't. Brassard won't. Dorsett is signed. Boyle? No. Stralman? Maybe. Moore once he is off his ELC won't get a huge raise.

Who are we worried about? Gaborik is gone. Richards will be gone.

With the trade of Gaborik, the Rangers extended their competitive time for a Cup.

 

[tjs252]

Agree with you 100% about moving Gaborik.

Disagree that it needed to be done at the deadline.

Gaborik still has a year left after this one.

The goal when they tried to acquire nash last Feb. was to have two very legit shots at the cup. They couldn't get a deal done and still almost go to the finals.

Then they do get Nash and have to trade Gabby before the PO's?

I like the trade. I believed and have been saying for well over a year that Gaborik WOULD get traded. But doing so before the 2013 draft was a declaration that this Nash-Gaborik experiment was a failure so they tried what we used to call in kindergarden a "do-over"

Get back the lost depth in the Nash trade and hope for the best.

Pathetic

More or less where I am with this one, as well.

As we've seen (and surely Nash is seeing) space is at a premium in the playoffs. This is when the "money" line we played early in the season would be worth it and then some. This is when you let it ride and see what happens. Yes, it's an inevitability that one would have to go before the end of next year, but between the Nash trade and the inevitable departure of Gaborik or Nash, you'd think we'd at least give one playoffs a try. Not doing so, while costing us significant forward depth (that was never really replaced, even in the Gaborik trade) was short-sighted, as was trading for Nash before knowing the new CBA. By all indications, we were the only team "in" on him, so it's not as if there was pressing urgency to get it done immediately.

 

[NYR Viper]

Agree with you 100% about moving Gaborik.

Disagree that it needed to be done at the deadline.

Gaborik still has a year left after this one.

The goal when they tried to acquire nash last Feb. was to have two very legit shots at the cup. They couldn't get a deal done and still almost go to the finals.

Then they do get Nash and have to trade Gabby before the PO's?

I like the trade. I believed and have been saying for well over a year that Gaborik WOULD get traded. But doing so before the 2013 draft was a declaration that this Nash-Gaborik experiment was a failure so they tried what we used to call in kindergarden a "do-over"

Get back the lost depth in the Nash trade and hope for the best.

Pathetic

The team was floundering because everyone outside of Stepan and Nash looked like dog crap.

It needed to be done at the deadline because Columbus obviously gave what he Rangers were looking for. More bidders for Gaborik at the deadline? Who knows.

Gaborik looked bad. Of course they wanted to try and make a run with Gaborik and Nash. The fact of the matter is, Gaborik looked like a shell of himself.

The Rangers were able to replace their 40 goal scorer with another 40 goal scorer who is younger and signed long-term. That is a plus unto itself.

Getting Brassard, who has seemed to play well in NY and Moore who is already playing in the top-6 and 15-18 minutes a night in the playoffs seems to be a good get.

This is what happens in a capped league for a team that is unwilling to suck so bad to get a top-5 pick for 3 years running. This is how they HAVE to operate. They have to be players in free agency and they have to make quantity for quality trades when they are available (as they are not available often). That is how they have to get top-end talent.

The experiment did not work because the "depth" players they signed/hoped to be ready were not ready and the top-end players they thought would carry the team could not do so. Pyatt, Kreider and Boyle are the former. Gaborik and Richards are the latter.

I commend the Rangers for being bold enough to make the deals they made. I expect this team to be better next year for it. Unfortunately, this season was a bit ugly.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Also, regarding Tortorella (who I am admittedly no longer a fan of, if for no other reason than perpetually trying to jam a square peg into a round hole is madness) I would have gladly said, around February when Gaborik was still here, that anything resulting in Tortorella's firing would have been OK with me as the talent (albeit top-heavy) was unquestionably there to win a cup.

Now? We absolutely have a "Torts" team (especially when Zucc is not retained), and I don't think there is anything a new coach can/could do to this roster. Nash is not a franchise winger, Girardi cannot carry a line by himself and Callahan is a top of the line bottom 6 forward. That's not to say anything is "wrong" with those players, just that the way they have been repeatedly exposed against good to great competition suggests we're hoping for over-achievement from far too many players to make it work.

Is it on Torts that he takes the little bit of skill we have and asks them to ugly it up? (Just watching Brassard and Nash play in the corners makes me want to scream) Absolutely, but a new guy isn't going to fix nearly enough to save next year, and that's another huge problem. Lundqvist is 31. You figure 2-3 more years is all you can absolutely count on, beyond that it's a stretch to simply assume greatness.

Nash may not be a franchise wing but he's an excellent player. Girardi, I agree with you, but he plays well with McDonagh. We also have 3 D-men at least who are better than him, Moore may be relatively soon too. Not like Girardi is our #1 D-man. Callahan is a guy that without injuries would have likely scored 30 goals in 2 consecutive seasons and was on pace again for as much. He also is not Clarkson, he can pass ok. He's not a playmaker, but he's not a friggin 30 goal gy that can't do anything else. You add his defensive game and he's a bona fide top 6 winger. Also, did I misunderstand you? Did you really insinuate that we were better off with Gaborik? Seriously? I'd take Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett over LAST YEAR'S Gaborik. Add 2 more important positions and solid depth. Also added Zucc who is a good player (most of our offense is created because of him and Brassard). This team is better than the opening night Rangers even with last year's Gaborik (especially if Staal and Clowe were healthy). Brassard is twice the playoff performer Gabby is and plays a far more important position.

 

[pld459666]

The team was floundering because everyone outside of Stepan and Nash looked like dog crap.

It needed to be done at the deadline because Columbus obviously gave what he Rangers were looking for. More bidders for Gaborik at the deadline? Who knows.

Gaborik looked bad. Of course they wanted to try and make a run with Gaborik and Nash. The fact of the matter is, Gaborik looked like a shell of himself.

The Rangers were able to replace their 40 goal scorer with another 40 goal scorer who is younger and signed long-term. That is a plus unto itself.

Getting Brassard, who has seemed to play well in NY and Moore who is already playing in the top-6 and 15-18 minutes a night in the playoffs seems to be a good get.

This is what happens in a capped league for a team that is unwilling to suck so bad to get a top-5 pick for 3 years running. This is how they HAVE to operate. They have to be players in free agency and they have to make quantity for quality trades when they are available (as they are not available often). That is how they have to get top-end talent.

The experiment did not work because the "depth" players they signed/hoped to be ready were not ready and the top-end players they thought would carry the team could not do so. Pyatt, Kreider and Boyle are the former. Gaborik and Richards are the latter.

I commend the Rangers for being bold enough to make the deals they made. I expect this team to be better next year for it. Unfortunately, this season was a bit ugly.

OR, we could have a coach that is willing to set his ego on the side and get another bench guy in. Someone that can be a PP specialist.

OR, even more drastic, evaluate the talent he HAS and taylor his system and style to suite that talent base.

Had both of those things taken place, there no need to move Gaborik.

It's hard to knock the trade because I like the depth it provided. It addressed three needs that we had in the form of a 3rd line center, a gritty bottom 6 winger and a depth defenceman.

I'm not fond of a coach that has no flexibility in his system and seems very much incapable of tayloring his style to suit the players he has.

Had Torts been able to do that, the Gaborik trade could have waited until the draft so that we could have regained the lost 1st in the nash deal.

Like I said, I agree that Gabby was a goner, but I also believe that it could have been done at a more proper time.

I keep coming back to this, you don't add a Nash to a Gaborik just to trade Gaborik before the season is over.

As we saw with Brassard's success in his first PO's, you never know what's going to happen.

 

[NYR Viper]

Andrew Gross ‏@AGrossRecord 42s
Carl Hagelin says, "For me, I definitely don’t think I stink on the power play. That’s the only comment I have on the PP."

Hagelin responding to Torts' comments?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

More or less where I am with this one, as well.

As we've seen (and surely Nash is seeing) space is at a premium in the playoffs. This is when the "money" line we played early in the season would be worth it and then some. This is when you let it ride and see what happens. Yes, it's an inevitability that one would have to go before the end of next year, but between the Nash trade and the inevitable departure of Gaborik or Nash, you'd think we'd at least give one playoffs a try. Not doing so, while costing us significant forward depth (that was never really replaced, even in the Gaborik trade) was short-sighted, as was trading for Nash before knowing the new CBA. By all indications, we were the only team "in" on him, so it's not as if there was pressing urgency to get it done immediately.

Gaborik has been a playoff bust since his first year in the playoffs. The lack of space is not good for soft floating snipers. It's even worse for soft floating snipers with 3rd line production.

Brassard was the leading scorer in the first round between either team. Yet somehow Gaborik who has been a playoff bust for years and would be injured would be able to elevate his 0.5 REGULAR SEASON PPG and become more important than Brassard. Especially when you realize that either Richards or Boyle would be our second line center, a much more important position. This is complete madness. We have replenished the depth, especially if Clowe were healthy. Looks at our 3rd line in the playoffs last year, not much different than this year's. Maybe better defensively, but I'd say this one has better offensive potential. With Clowe it's not even close.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Agree with you 100% about moving Gaborik.

Disagree that it needed to be done at the deadline.

Gaborik still has a year left after this one.

The goal when they tried to acquire nash last Feb. was to have two very legit shots at the cup. They couldn't get a deal done and still almost go to the finals.

Then they do get Nash and have to trade Gabby before the PO's?

I like the trade. I believed and have been saying for well over a year that Gaborik WOULD get traded. But doing so before the 2013 draft was a declaration that this Nash-Gaborik experiment was a failure so they tried what we used to call in kindergarden a "do-over"

Get back the lost depth in the Nash trade and hope for the best.

Pathetic

You're pretending like we got back a bunch 3 Dorsetts in the trade. We got a guy that led the first round series in points and was the 2nd best Ranger after Lundqvist. We got a guy that prevents us from having to play Hamerlik or Gilroy as a 6th defenseman and having Eminger be our #5. Oh and we got a little depth as well. All for a guy that had 0.5 PPG at the time of the trade, is on the wrong side of 30, expensive, and has had a history of disappearing in the playoffs. Even if you forget the long term, if we keep Gabby even if we make the playoffs we're not making it past the first round. This is about as much of an obvious win for us as possible. People just need to complain about something. It seems like a friggin high or something.

 

[Trxjw]

Hagelin responding to Torts' comments?

Hagelin just doesn't know to motivate himself as well as Torts does.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Say what you want about Gomez, but at least he could gain the zone, to name one. Everybody loves their lunch-pail kids. What I saw yesterday was the smallish forwards and the D getting abused (like red-haired steps-kids).

The problem with our PP is not a missing (pun intended) 100 mph shot from the point. What we're missing is a dman that can skate laterally with the puck, causing the d to react, thus opening lanes. Anybody see Krug yesterday? A skater like that is what we need manning the point. And some sizzle on Offense. Enough of the plain vanilla character kids.

McDonagh and Moore can skate laterally pretty damn well and stickhandle. Torts puts Girardi on as well, it's an embarrassment.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

McDonagh and Moore can skate laterally pretty damn well and stickhandle. Torts puts Girardi on as well, it's an embarrassment.

While I LOVE (am in-love with) their skating abilities, I disagree that they can do what is necessary to open up shooting lanes and, break-down the defensive box or triangle, to set up diagonal passes so that goalies have to move from one side to another. Look up that Karlsen kid in OTT or Schultz in EDM.

On our powerplay, if we manage to get a shot through traffic, the goalie just makes himself big so the puck hits him. That IF we hit the net.

Agree on Girardi. MDZ is also NOT the answer.

 

[Tawnos]

I think that when a player like Nash becomes available, you make the move. It may have been hard to handle this season but in the long-term of the deal, players like Dubinsky, Anisimov and Erixon are MUCH easier to replace than a player like Nash.

That's not being trigger happy, that's trading quantity for Quality. It doesn't happen often.

Players like Nash become available all the time, in terms of top line forwards. I don't have a problem with the deal itself so much as the timing of it. A good GM doesn't jump at every chance he gets. He jumps at the right chance at the right time.

 

[Kershaw]

Hagelin responding to Torts' comments?

Country club atmosphere.

 

[NYR Viper]

Players like Nash become available all the time, in terms of top line forwards. I don't have a problem with the deal itself so much as the timing of it. A good GM doesn't jump at every chance he gets. He jumps at the right chance at the right time.

When do players like Nash become available? Who has been available?

 

[NickyFotiu]

Hagelin responding to Torts' comments?

I'm glad he stood up for himself. We have had a lot of talented players on that power play. It is not a lack of talent that kills the powerplay. It is the lack of a real plan outside of put somebody in front and shoot.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Players like Nash become available all the time, in terms of top line forwards. I don't have a problem with the deal itself so much as the timing of it. A good GM doesn't jump at every chance he gets. He jumps at the right chance at the right time.

Our biggest issue last year was top end talent so we decided to add Nash to a team that was in the ECF last year. What's the problem with the timing?

 

[stan the caddy]

Our biggest issue last year was top end talent so we decided to add Nash to a team that was in the ECF last year. What's the problem with the timing?

The trade was a no-brainer but it really sucks that Kreider didn't get it together. I think they were really counting on him contributing to the top six.

 

[Tawnos]

When do players like Nash become available? Who has been available?

I can think of Kovalchuk, Horton, Kessel, Carter, Van Riemsdyk, Neal, Pominville are all first line players that have been traded in the last 5 years. I suppose you can argue JVR isn't a first liner. Fine. My point remains. There were plenty of opportunities to upgrade the talent in our top 6 and in our top line. Vanek might be available now. Ryan has been rumored to be available on and off for a couple of years. Mike Richards was available, but the Flyers weren't trading him to us.

The point is that Nash wasn't the only option ever out there. Players get traded in this league fairly often.

Our biggest issue last year was top end talent so we decided to add Nash to a team that was in the ECF last year. What's the problem with the timing?

The problem with the timing is that we didn't have the assets to give up. Acquiring top end talent is all well and good, but not at the expense of the way we built the success of last year.

 

[Tawnos]

The trade was a no-brainer but it really sucks that Kreider didn't get it together. I think they were really counting on him contributing to the top six.

That's exactly part of my point too. Making the trade forced us to rely on a rookie LW to contribute to our top 6 when all experience should've told you that relying on such a player is a pretty huge gamble.