Player Discussion Julien Gauthier

[True Blue]

He's the ideal 4th liner. He makes an impact, works his butt off, and can play up in the lineup without hurting you. I love his game.

Gauthier?

 

[nyr2k2]

Lemieux is one of those player who is easy to fall in love, but the downside is that it's also easy to over-project the offense.

I think, in the right situation, Lemieux can get into that 15 goal/35 point range. But I also feel that his offense, and just about every level he's played, has never quite matched the hope. There's always this feeling that it should be just a little more, and there's not quite a clear reason why. And I think some of that, which jives with what you're saying, is why the Rangers are his third franchise. He's intriguing, and he does some very unique things, but there's always this feeling that he's not quite the player you think he should be.

Agreed. If we accept the player for what he is, hope he maybe becomes a little more, but don't get down on him for not reaching it, we should be fine. It didn't help that we were having "Can he be like Tom Wilson?" conversations to begin the year, which, while most people didn't buy into that idea, set the bar way too high.

 

[Inferno]

Gauthier?

Sorry lemieux.

I see Gauthier as the eventual right winger with panarin. Not a top line player.. but skilled enough and a good finisher to be able to make a high end line.

 

[True Blue]

Sorry lemieux.

I see Gauthier as the eventual right winger with panarin. Not a top line player.. but skilled enough and a good finisher to be able to make a high end line.

I think that the potential for Lemieux is to be more than 4th liner. To be fair, I do not think that he received much of a chance for that this year, but when he has, he played well.

To be honest, I do not see why Di Guiseppe is ahead of him. I would do it the other way, but understand that Quinn probably does not want to rock the boat.

 

[Edge]

Sorry lemieux.

I see Gauthier as the eventual right winger with panarin. Not a top line player.. but skilled enough and a good finisher to be able to make a high end line.

Gauthier to be seems like he could be a tweener. I think he could bring offense to the third line role, especially from a goal scoring perspective, but I don't know if there's quite enough there to consistently have in the top six.

He almost looks like a bit of a specialist to me --- a guy who might post Cy Young numbers in the NHL, if he can put the pieces in the right place.

 

[Edge]

I think that the potential for Lemieux is to be more than 4th liner. To be fair, I do not think that he received much of a chance for that this year, but when he has, he played well.

To be honest, I do not see why Di Guiseppe is ahead of him. I would do it the other way, but understand that Quinn probably does not want to rock the boat.

I think Lemieux could definitely become a third line player.

 

[Inferno]

Gauthier to be seems like he could be a tweener. I think he could bring offense to the third line role, especially from a goal scoring perspective, but I don't know if there's quite enough there to consistently have in the top six.

He almost looks like a bit of a specialist to me --- a guy who might post Cy Young numbers in the NHL, if he can put the pieces in the right place.

Panarin could make me look like an NHL player.

 

[Edge]

Panarin could make me look like an NHL player.

Eh, I think we say that about certain players and while there's some truth to it, I think we cannot underestimate the power of chemistry.

I think we've seen that work both ways over the years --- through the dark times, as well as through the Jagr years.

Instinct tells us that 2+2 should equal four. But sometimes it only amounts to 3.

Likewise, sometimes 1+2 ends up equaling 5.

But sometimes I think we get so fixated on what "should" work, and "who" we want it to work for, that we end up trying to force the issue to get what we want and not necessarily what's actually working.

 

[TheDirtyH]

Lemieux is one of those player who is easy to fall in love, but the downside is that it's also easy to over-project the offense.

I think, in the right situation, Lemieux can get into that 15 goal/35 point range. But I also feel that his offense, and just about every level he's played, has never quite matched the hope. There's always this feeling that it should be just a little more, and there's not quite a clear reason why. And I think some of that, which jives with what you're saying, is why the Rangers are his third franchise. He's intriguing, and he does some very unique things, but there's always this feeling that he's not quite the player you think he should be.

He reminds me of Derek Dorsett, who I loved on our fourth line.

 

[True Blue]

Panarin could make me look like an NHL player.

And yet Drury looked like a bad Drury and Gomez looked like a bad Gomez with Jagr.

 

[Edge]

He reminds me of Derek Dorsett, who I loved on our fourth line.

And if he's "only" a fourth line LW, that's okay. He'll bring something needed. If he hits that 15/35, third line level, even better.

I'd rather have some over-qualified for their role, then under-qualified. It's similar to how I feel about concerns about having too much talent at one position --- you can always deal from a position of strength. But it's much harder to get value when your asset is underwhelming.

 

[nyr2k2]

Eh, I think we say that about certain players and while there's some truth to it, I think we cannot underestimate the power of chemistry.

I think we've seen that work both ways over the years --- through the dark times, as well as through the Jagr years.

Instinct tells us that 2+2 should equal four. But sometimes it only amounts to 3.

Likewise, sometimes 1+2 ends up equaling 5.

But sometimes I think we get so fixated on what "should" work, and "who" we want it to work for, that we end up trying to force the issue to get what we want and not necessarily what's actually working.

I remember the great debate about whether Jagr should play with Drury or Gomez. I think most people settled on Drury, since Gomez and Jagr both played best with the puck on their stick. And then it ended up that neither worked, because there wasn't really any chemistry. And yet he had the chemistry with Nylander, who if you looked at what he excelled at, you probably wouldn't guess that they were a great combo. Go figure.

 

[TheDirtyH]

And if he's "only" a fourth line LW, that's okay. He'll bring something needed. If he hits that 15/35, third line level, even better.

I'd rather have some over-qualified for their role, then under-qualified. It's similar to how I feel about concerns about having too much talent at one position --- you can always deal from a position of strength. But it's much harder to get value when your asset is underwhelming.

That Boyle-Moore-Carcillo/Dorsett in 13-14 was a huge part of the team's success and it's because they were all some of the best 4th liners in the league.

I'm with you: never a bad thing to have a player who excels in their role, even if that role is limited or unsexy. Lemieux has the speed and snarl to play effectively on the fourth line. That he can put approach 10-15 goals, and have a positive penalty differential with that is a great add and something every team should want.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

He reminds me of Derek Dorsett, who I loved on our fourth line.

He's got more skill and is a smarter player than Dorsett.

 

[TheDirtyH]

On Gauthier: I get why he's gotten the minutes he has and I'll say that he's only impressed me more with his composure, his willingness to play those minutes hard, earn his coaches' and teammates' trust, play an honest game, trying to win his shifts rather than get a breakaway or cheat... and he's done some really good things in basically no icetime.

He seems to have a great attitude and the power/skill combo has been evident too.

 

[Edge]

I remember the great debate about whether Jagr should play with Drury or Gomez. I think most people settled on Drury, since Gomez and Jagr both played best with the puck on their stick. And then it ended up that neither worked, because there wasn't really any chemistry. And yet he had the chemistry with Nylander, who if you looked at what he excelled at, you probably wouldn't guess that they were a great combo. Go figure.

Strome reminds me a lot of Nylander in the sense that they were highly regarded prospects who took a longer time to consistently put the pieces together. They also found chemistry with elite players who gave them 20 some odd point bonus on their numbers.

But lost in all of that, was the fact that they made it work and contributed to the success of their teams. And at the end of the day, price permitting, that's the goal. We root for the team, because teams win championships.

We can't get caught up in wanting some guys to succeed because we like the way they play, while others guys never wow us but get better results. Maybe Chytil does just as good as Strome, maybe he does even better. Or maybe he doesn't. Chemistry is a funny thing. We have to find out at some point.

But I don't think Strome is automatically a player that needs to go or be swapped out. I think he brings value to this team.

 

[Raspewtin]

him and Lemieux look great together

he's more rugged than I expected and his playmaking is getting more crisp and accurate

excited to see the future for him

 

[Raspewtin]

I think that the potential for Lemieux is to be more than 4th liner. To be fair, I do not think that he received much of a chance for that this year, but when he has, he played well.

To be honest, I do not see why Di Guiseppe is ahead of him. I would do it the other way, but understand that Quinn probably does not want to rock the boat.

I agree with this. Lemieux has most of the year played with players that are really poor offensive drivers. Not that he needs to be in the top 6, but he's played a lot of time on the 4th line and with Howden who have absolutely no NHL offense. I don't think Lemieux is a 40 point guy but I think he's better than his play has shown and that if we wanted him to rack up some points, he's not really getting the chance for that at ES.

 

[Fugazy]

him and Lemieux look great together

he's more rugged than I expected and his playmaking is getting more crisp and accurate

excited to see the future for him

I really like the combination of their skill sets. Looking forward to seeing their development together.

 

[DelZottoHitTheNetJK]

Really impressed by Goat so far. He's got obvious skill but he also plays a hard nosed type of game and uses his frame. He's already starting to look like he's settling in after just a few games which sometimes take established NHLers entire seasons to settle in to a new team, let alone a young rookie

 

[Crease]

Love what he has brought so far, but guys like Skjei and Howden have scared me away from making any sort of definitive statements about rookies.

 

[n8]

curious to see a Lemiuex-Barron-Gauthier combo next year (or maybe at the end of this one?)

 

[Edge]

It will be interesting to see the Rangers approach to Barron’s position.

 

[dshea19]

Gaut intrigues me. Lemmy needs to lose some bulk. Looks too bulky to stickhandle and seems awkward doing so.

 

[Ola]

I think Nylander is one of the best neutral zone stick handler like ever. But the NHL before 05’ was of course the worst possible fit for him. He had some legendary WCHs for Sweden before we got him when Renney coached Canada, definitely think that played a huge part in that we went out and signed him.

The problem I have with Strome is not what I think he can do with Panarin, it’s what we would get away from Panarin and at what cost.