Player Discussion Ryan Lindgren

[SeanAveryTheGreatOne]

literally every other month we see GMs do each other favors getting out of bad situations

and, to address lindgren, his replacement is not relevant because he is a massive net negative right now. we made the exact same excuses for G/Staal and then they proceeded to drag us out of contention as soon as the damn ink dried on their war crime extensions. not playing is better than this "devil you know" stuff

100% accurate. Lindgren is this team's past-prime Staal. Trouba is this team's past-prime Girardi.

I absolutely believe we should be giving some of our blue chip prospects opportunities over those 2 at the bare minimum.

 

[kovazub94]

literally every other month we see GMs do each other favors getting out of bad situations

and, to address lindgren, his replacement is not relevant because he is a massive net negative right now. we made the exact same excuses for G/Staal and then they proceeded to drag us out of contention as soon as the damn ink dried on their war crime extensions. not playing is better than this "devil you know" stuff

The problem for Drury to deal with Lindgren was Trouba and no GM could help Drury out with it.

On the other hand as you could notice Drury was able to deal with Goodrow’s contract in the way you described.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

100% accurate. Lindgren is this team's past-prime Staal. Trouba is this team's past-prime Girardi.

I absolutely believe we should be giving some of our blue chip prospects opportunities over those 2 at the bare minimum.

Who are they?

 

[SeanAveryTheGreatOne]

Who are they?

Listen... They're the guys with the compete level.

Jokes aside, Jones deserves a shot

 

[Shesterkybomb]

5 on 5 is a hump we need to get over, it's odd how much better Kreider and Zibanejad are when they are killing penalties.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

5 on 5 is a hump we need to get over, it's odd how much better Kreider and Zibanejad are when they are killing penalties.

There’s no reason for them to be so poor at 5v5.

They both have size, IQ, skill , and good skating .

There’s something else holding them back

 

[Roo Returns]

not to single you out but this idea that GMs should be spared criticism because they can't get creative is outrageous. it's literally their job.

How could Drury have got creative? The facts are the Rangers have one hopeful prospect (Mancini) who may surprise and make the team at some point this season and he's an RHD so not a perfect Lindgren replacement.

The only other trade chip they had was Kakko and his value is at a all time low. They're not trading a core piece for a better analytical LDH.

They could've maybe made a move if Trouba was traded but once that ship sailed, they were very limited in what they could do.

 

[Raspewtin]

How could Drury have got creative? The facts are the Rangers have one hopeful prospect (Mancini) who may surprise and make the team at some point this season and he's an RHD so not a perfect Lindgren replacement.

The only other trade chip they had was Kakko and his value is at a all time low. They're not trading a core piece for a better analytical LDH.

They could've maybe made a move if Trouba was traded but once that ship sailed, they were very limited in what they could do.

I don't know. That's not our job to do it for him. He's the one with 31 GMs in his contact book and an intimate knowledge of who's out there and who isn't. Just because we don't know doesn't mean it's not out there. It's not an excuse.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

100% accurate. Lindgren is this team's past-prime Staal. Trouba is this team's past-prime Girardi.

I absolutely believe we should be giving some of our blue chip prospects opportunities over those 2 at the bare minimum.

what blue chip prospects? we have zzero D prospects

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Why is it so difficult for this team to just move on from players that aren't good just because their home grown?

They love to sell Lindgren-type "heart and soul" players to the fan base. Then when such players turn detrimental to winning they can't change direction.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

If we have to do this again, can we please play him in a role that is more suited or just not with Fox?

Heh heh ... is there any chance they break up this pair? I'm betting no. But would love to see it happen.

 

[McRanger92]

Based on merit, the pairs should be
Fox-Miller
Schenider-Jones
Lindgren-Trouba

and they shouldnt be afraid to try Robertson or Ruhwedel if someone underperforms. In my mind we're back to square one on defense, outside of Fox. Robertson is probably bad but at least it would be different. Ruhwedel was better than Trouba in the cup of coffee he was given after the deadline.

 

[Gordon Bombay]

Based on merit, the pairs should be
Fox-Miller
Schenider-Jones
Lindgren-Trouba

and they shouldnt be afraid to try Robertson or Ruhwedel if someone underperforms. In my mind we're back to square one on defense, outside of Fox. Robertson is probably bad but at least it would be different. Ruhwedel was better than Trouba in the cup of coffee he was given after the deadline.

This is what I would like to see tried, but you just know there's no way this team actually plays Lindgren-Trouba as the 3rd pair. They will be out there getting completely caved in with 2nd pair mins

 

[McRanger92]

This is what I would like to see tried, but you just know there's no way this team actually plays Lindgren-Trouba as the 3rd pair. They will be out there getting completely caved in with 2nd pair mins

That would be the team's downfall. If the players can't put their egos aside, it will at least be the final answer to the question we all kind of already know, and big changes will need to be made.

 

[Gordon Bombay]

That would be the team's downfall. If the players can't put their egos aside, it will at least be the final answer to the question we all kind of already know, and big changes will need to be made.

The inmates have been running the asylum for quite some time now.

 

[bleedblue94]

Based on merit, the pairs should be
Fox-Miller
Schenider-Jones
Lindgren-Trouba

and they shouldnt be afraid to try Robertson or Ruhwedel if someone underperforms. In my mind we're back to square one on defense, outside of Fox. Robertson is probably bad but at least it would be different. Ruhwedel was better than Trouba in the cup of coffee he was given after the deadline.

And this is the issue, you absolutely cannot put lindgren and trouba together bc neither can effectively get the puck up to the forwards. Lindgren will probably be stapled to fox again bc they have to do it based on the d personnel, not bc it's the best structure.

It's almost certainly going to be
55 23
79 4
6 8

Not saying that the best, but it's probably the best based on the limited depth and skill they have at d

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

And this is the issue, you absolutely cannot put lindgren and trouba together bc neither can effectively get the puck up to the forwards. Lindgren will probably be stapled to fox again bc they have to do it based on the d personnel, not bc it's the best structure.

It's almost certainly going to be
55 23
79 4
6 8

Not saying that the best, but it's probably the best based on the limited depth and skill they have at d

It’s almost as if they should have traded Lindgren and replaced him with a better player.

 

[SeanAveryTheGreatOne]

And this is the issue, you absolutely cannot put lindgren and trouba together bc neither can effectively get the puck up to the forwards. Lindgren will probably be stapled to fox again bc they have to do it based on the d personnel, not bc it's the best structure.

It's almost certainly going to be
55 23
79 4
6 8

Not saying that the best, but it's probably the best based on the limited depth and skill they have at d

You gotta give em the Stu Bickel treatment

 

[bleedblue94]

You gotta give em the Stu Bickel treatment

We can just go and play four defensemen every game, and one of them will be a rookie

It’s almost as if they should have traded Lindgren and replaced him with a better player.

That's fine, and again and again and again the question comes up who is that player? It's so easy to just say go find another NHL caliber defenseman who's better than player x, but it's 2024 and team struggle to find good players because there's 32 teams in the league. I've said it since the season undead, I have no issues changing personnel, but you have to know what your replacement and upgrade is before you just run somebody out of town and off the roster. They didn't resign him until extremely late so they had every opportunity to go out and get an upgrade but maybe one just did not exist that they could afford...

 

[80shockeywasbuns]

It feels disingenuous when people say "well if you get rid of Lindgren who exactly replaces him?"

Who here had us trading for Reilly Smith in particular?

That's a meaningless topic. Replace him. Period. There's 600 players in the league.

LOL people always think it’s some sort of “gotcha” to point out that a specific replacement hasn’t been mentioned. “You’re just gonna kick this guy off the team before we find another festering pile of wildebeest shit that’s bad at everything?”

 

[Machinehead]

We can just go and play four defensemen every game, and one of them will be a rookie


That's fine, and again and again and again the question comes up who is that player? It's so easy to just say go find another NHL caliber defenseman who's better than player x, but it's 2024 and team struggle to find good players because there's 32 teams in the league. I've said it since the season undead, I have no issues changing personnel, but you have to know what your replacement and upgrade is before you just run somebody out of town and off the roster. They didn't resign him until extremely late so they had every opportunity to go out and get an upgrade but maybe one just did not exist that they could afford...

People made plenty of suggestions and they all got signed elsewhere.

I'm sure people will make plenty more suggestions that will be ignored because we have to push the dogma that Lindgen can't be replaced.

And that's just free agents which are easy suggestions. Suggesting an actual trade that both teams will agree to in the real world is a literal waste of time.

Luckily, the Rangers are paying people to figure that kind of thing out.

If they choose not to, it's almost always because they would just rather have that guy on the team and that's the part people disagree with.

 

[bhamill]

People made plenty of suggestions and they all got signed elsewhere.

I'm sure people will make plenty more suggestions that will be ignored because we have to push the dogma that Lindgen can't be replaced.

And that's just free agents which are easy suggestions. Suggesting an actual trade that both teams will agree to in the real world is a literal waste of time.

Luckily, the Rangers are paying people to figure that kind of thing out.

If they choose not to, it's almost always because they would just rather have that guy on the team and that's the part people disagree with.

Well it takes two to make a trade, and then it has to be a reasonable trade. Who says trades were not explored? How can we say that Drury didn’t try his damnedest to upgrade Lindgren but there were no reasonable moves to be made. We’re bagging on people for asking just who we would upgrade with as if that’s a reasonable thing to demand, but then turning around and no more reasonably assuming the reason Lindgren was not upgraded was because we wanted to keep him/didn’t try to trade him. There’s a balance, the goal is upgrading him without more heavily downgrading another area. Not always possible.

 

[Machinehead]

Well it takes two to make a trade, and then it has to be a reasonable trade. Who says trades were not explored? How can we say that Drury didn’t try his damnedest to upgrade Lindgren but there were no reasonable moves to be made. We’re bagging on people for asking just who we would upgrade with as if that’s a reasonable thing to demand, but then turning around and no more reasonably assuming the reason Lindgren was not upgraded was because we wanted to keep him/didn’t try to trade him. There’s a balance, the goal is upgrading him without more heavily downgrading another area. Not always possible.

I'm sure lots of things are explored. It's the job of the front office to explore possibilities.

That being said, I tend to be of the belief that if you really want somebody off the team, guess what? He's not on the team anymore.

The idea over the years that we've been stuck with bad players despite trying our damndest, is 100-proof, organic, free-range HFNYR cope.

It's comforting to think that the team sees the problem, but the problem just exists -and existed past-tense- rather than they don't see the problem.

The best evidence for this take is that they keep replacing these guys they got "stuck" with (Staal, Girardi) with more guys they're stuck with (Lindgren, Trouba). If they actually saw the problem, they wouldn't keep repeating it.

In reality, yes, the Rangers probably explored upgrading Lindgren, just like you explore upgrading anybody who's not your cream-of-the-crop player, but they don't think it's imperative that they get him off the ice. Unless something materializes, they won't act. That makes sense.

The vocal people on the board opposed to Lindgren absolutely do think it's imperative that he's not on the ice. That's the disconnect with the team and where the criticism of the front office comes in.

If it were a case of "we tried but we're stuck with him," that's one thing, but nobody's buying that. They don't think it's problem the way I, @GoAwayPanarin, and others do.

 

[bhamill]

I'm sure lots of things are explored. It's the job of the front office to explore possibilities.

That being said, I tend to be of the belief that if you really want somebody off the team, guess what? He's not on the team anymore.

The idea over the years that we've been stuck with bad players despite trying our damndest, is 100-proof, organic, free-range HFNYR cope.

It's comforting to think that the team sees the problem, but the problem just exists -and existed past-tense- rather than they don't see the problem.

The best evidence for this take is that they keep replacing these guys they got "stuck" with (Staal, Girardi) with more guys they're stuck with (Lindgren, Trouba). If they actually saw the problem, they wouldn't keep repeating it.

In reality, yes, the Rangers probably explored upgrading Lindgren, just like you explore upgrading anybody who's not your cream-of-the-crop player, but they don't think it's imperative that they get him off the ice. Unless something materializes, they won't act. That makes sense.

The vocal people on the board opposed to Lindgren absolutely do think it's imperative that he's not on the ice. That's the disconnect with the team and where the criticism of the front office comes in.

If it were a case of "we tried but we're stuck with him," that's one thing, but nobody's buying that. They don't think it's problem the way I, @GoAwayPanarin, and others do.

Sure. I agree. If you really want him off the team even if it makes the team worse then sure he’d be gone. For instance, all they had to do is not qualify him… I don’t think that means we’d be a better team right now.

 

[mrmovies779]

Maybe that walrus from the commercial can switch from goalie to D for us and sign.Theres your Lindgren and Trouba replacement