Post-Game Talk: Rangers vs. Red Wings | 3/19/19 - 7PM - MSG

[JHS]

You get this. Not everyone else does. The mindset that any draft pick is going to be a valuable asset is what drives me up the wall. 7OA should not be a player like Lias Andersson. If a player like Lias Andersson is best player available at 7OA, maybe the draft isn't the best way to restock talent.



Most likely true this year. Although, with a few breaks here or there, they aren't as far away as some think they are. Which is another issue altogether. On defense, the Rangers do seem to have a pretty decent potential "core" being developed. That's assuming Hajek is going to be as useful as he showed in his short time frame, DeAngelo continues to improve, Miller is a legitimate NHLer, and Rykov is as well. That's not a bad start, but without surrounding those guys with a decent team to start, the Edmonton mentality starts creeping into the picture.



Question is, for how long?



I was on record of being fine with trading Zuccarello. Not thrilled with getting rid of Hayes. There's more talent there than most of this board sees. Maybe Lemieux will fill a role desperately needed and a 2c appears magically? Who knows, but the team is desperately thin through the middle.

Also, it's not just about this year. It's about how long does a rebuild take?



Really not discussing people who post on this board. What are we, maybe 2% of the entire Ranger fanbase? I'm talking about the average "fan" who loses interest when the team fails to make the playoffs for three/four years in a row. We used to be "better" than the Piles "fan" who only cared when they were winning, or Devil "fan" who just hates the Rangers. It's not that way any more. Ranger fans aren't the same loyal clan than always stayed true regardless.



They are bad, now. But what's the actual plan to stop being bad?

The plan to stop being bad is what I’m most interested in and that’s why I lose it with the people who just want to be bad because they know being bad gets higher picks. As said, being bad is the easy part. Everything else that goes along with the rebuild is the issue. That’s why people advocating for not getting top free agents drove me up the wall. That just reflects the loser mentality!

Your point about the fan base is right on the money. Everyone on here won’t got anywhere- we are the loyal guys who love the team. It’s the generation growing up right now that will suffer most! I took a friend to her first game ever last night. We had a great time but the game was terrible, the atmosphere at the Garden was only slightly better than minor league games I’ve been too and the fan involvement was minimal. That’s why rebuilds can’t take forever. A short time, sure. Indefinitely- nope.

 

[NCRanger]

I completely agree that Quinn is terrific and you are exactly right- the culture is not terrible. This team works hard but they still lose and that is not great in the long term. Furthermore, the real terrible environment seems to be in Hartford. That’s a problem!

I was given tickets to the Charlotte - Syracuse AHL game last night. These are the two best teams in the league, supposedly.

Syracuse won 2-1 in OT. Shots on Goal - Charlotte 25 (and that was generous), Syracuse 18.

The game was sleep inducing. I really didn't see a lot of so-called "talent" on either side. A few forwards for Syracuse showed me a little (#11 and #15. #67 looked okay too). Charlotte? The defenseman, Carrick, was the only one who stood out. Game was exceptionally fast, but actual skill was severely lacking. You could see what they wanted to do, but skated themselves out of what they could do.

Just saying, the AHL might not be a great barometer of environment. And being on a losing team down there could be a development blocker. Some guys with a bit of skill might actually do better in the NHL or a foreign league than one with some pretty bad hockey players. It's not a league full of 21-23 year olds. The majority of the teams are full of 25-27 year olds that are on second and third two-way contracts.

 

[Levitate]

I wonder if there's been a bit of an idea change over the past couple of decades in the NHL that not everyone has really caught on with.

Used to be that 30 or so was considered prime years and I think teams may not have thought too hard about re-signing guys like Hayes, Zucc, McDonagh, etc with the idea that they'd have them locked up for the rest of their prime years no problem at all and there'd be plenty of time for the team to rebuild around them and be competing for the cup again (not to mention not having a salary cap).

These days we realize that 30 is about when a players prime comes to a screeching halt and their play falls off a cliff and locking yourself into a long contract with them at that point isn't a good idea and if you're a bad team that needs to figure out how to rebuild, then maybe it's best to trade them for assets that can hopefully help the rebuild.

I don't think "tanking" is the only way to rebuild but picking top 3 in a draft or multiple drafts is the closest thing to a surefire way to acquire elite talent and it's extremely hard to win a cup in the NHL without elite talent. If you're not picking top 3, it becomes an even bigger roll of the dice to draft that elite talent further down the draft board.

In a perfect world the Rangers win the draft lottery, Tampa wins the Cup, Dallas wins two rounds of the playoffs, and the Rangers have 4 first round picks to use on selecting an elite talent with their own and then if their scouts were any good pick up at least one other elite talent (magically) with their remaining picks.

In reality...probably not so much

 

[Miamipuck]

Shut up you *******

There's no denying what I am, guilty as charged.

 

[JHS]

I was given tickets to the Charlotte - Syracuse AHL game last night. These are the two best teams in the league, supposedly.

Syracuse won 2-1 in OT. Shots on Goal - Charlotte 25 (and that was generous), Syracuse 18.

The game was sleep inducing. I really didn't see a lot of so-called "talent" on either side. A few forwards for Syracuse showed me a little (#11 and #15. #67 looked okay too). Charlotte? The defenseman, Carrick, was the only one who stood out. Game was exceptionally fast, but actual skill was severely lacking. You could see what they wanted to do, but skated themselves out of what they could do.

Just saying, the AHL might not be a great barometer of environment. And being on a losing team down there could be a development blocker. Some guys with a bit of skill might actually do better in the NHL or a foreign league than one with some pretty bad hockey players. It's not a league full of 21-23 year olds. The majority of the teams are full of 25-27 year olds that are on second and third two-way contracts.

I don’t think the AHL is a good league to develop in and certainly not this year’s Hartford situation. That being said, development has to occur somewhere and in the rebuild,the AHL will be important for the Rangers to get right.

 

[SML2]

So your paragraph in which you mention the shortcomings of other rebuilding organizations where you list issues with their rebuild I find comical. Not because you don’t make valid points( you do) but because I read that and I say,

Poor ownership= Check!

Dolan is one of the worst owners in sports. He owns two teams and both are terrible. He cares way more about the building( which the renovation is amazing in all fairness to him.) at this point.

Lack of funds- ok Rangers have unlimited funds.

No direction- You argue the Rangers have a clear direction- “just be bad”. My argument is the direction should always be let’s be good. Seems like a no direction situation to me!

Bad development system- Check times 100! Hartford is a disaster and the Rangers are rushing players into the NHL!! I watched Lias’ interview during last nights game. He looked completely dejected! Like destroyed mentally!! That’s HORRIBLE for a players development! Sounds like a poor development system to me!

No continuity- Check again! The Rangers have about 5 guys from when they made a cup run in 2014 still on the roster. The shuttle between Hartford and the NHL has never been more active. They’ve skated over 30 players on the NHL roster this year, about the same last year and seem to have a very small core in place. They’ve gone through 2 coaches, 4 assistants 2 GM’s and that’s only what I know of!

A history of getting destroyed in trades- TBD. The McD trade when he became a Ranger for Scott Gomez several years ago was tremendous for the Rangers and Gordon has made some nice ones so far. The latest McD trade where they sent him away may be a fleecing but again not a difinitive check.

Completely whiffing on top 3 picks- TBD but the track record is leaning towards another check for the Rangers! Lias looks terrible and he was a top 10 pick! I’d also argue that teams like Edmonton and Buffalo have not totally whiffed and Ottawa has drafted pretty well!

Little to no free agent attraction- once again Check for the Rangers! No one will want to come to this dumpster fire right now. Plus the free agents the Rangers have actively pursued and signed, Kevin Shatenkirk namely, have been terrible signings. The lure of New York seems to be a thing of the past and may work against the Rangers. The team will have to overpay to get talent and that will be even worse!

So for all those distinctions you think set the Rangers apart I’d argue are not actually aspects that set them apart at all!

I Don't think you're right on much here.
Prior to the letter, the Rangers finished the longest sustained period of success in team history. They played more playoff games than just about anyone over the previous five or six years. Since Lundqvist arrived, that's the best this team has been for the longest period ever. They just didn't win a cup.
You can say a lot of things about Dolan, but he at least puts the money into the product. Look at Melnyk from Ottawa and tell me we have bad ownership.
This team has always been a player in Free agency, but free agents should be the cherry on top of the sundae, not the other way around. You don't fill the bowl with cherries and put the ice cream on top. We aren't ready and we shouldn't be pursuing them until the foundation is set.
The system hasn't produced players because in order to sustain that extended period of playoff runs, they gave up a lot along the way. You can have a hell of a time running up a bar tab, but eventually you need to settle the bill. That's what the letter was about. We mortgaged the future for the present for the last 10 years. Now we're mortgaging the present for the future. I Give them credit. It's a bold strategy Cotton. We'll see if it pays off.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I wonder if there's been a bit of an idea change over the past couple of decades in the NHL that not everyone has really caught on with.

Used to be that 30 or so was considered prime years and I think teams may not have thought too hard about re-signing guys like Hayes, Zucc, McDonagh, etc with the idea that they'd have them locked up for the rest of their prime years no problem at all and there'd be plenty of time for the team to rebuild around them and be competing for the cup again (not to mention not having a salary cap).

These days we realize that 30 is about when a players prime comes to a screeching halt and their play falls off a cliff and locking yourself into a long contract with them at that point isn't a good idea and if you're a bad team that needs to figure out how to rebuild, then maybe it's best to trade them for assets that can hopefully help the rebuild.

I don't think "tanking" is the only way to rebuild but picking top 3 in a draft or multiple drafts is the closest thing to a surefire way to acquire elite talent and it's extremely hard to win a cup in the NHL without elite talent. If you're not picking top 3, it becomes an even bigger roll of the dice to draft that elite talent further down the draft board.

In a perfect world the Rangers win the draft lottery, Tampa wins the Cup, Dallas wins two rounds of the playoffs, and the Rangers have 4 first round picks to use on selecting an elite talent with their own and then if their scouts were any good pick up at least one other elite talent (magically) with their remaining picks.

In reality...probably not so much

Very good post, especially the point about the age of where players peak and decline. It wasn't until a couple of years ago where there was some sort of research done about when a players true prime began and where the decline began. It's a different game now that we know a player peaks around 25 and starts to decline around 30 like you said.

 

[egelband]

It

It becomes "how bad is bad"?

Sort of like the home runs in Major League......"Too high.......Too far.....WHO CARES? IT'S GONE!!"

It's not any one player or three players. The team *on the whole* isn't good enough. These players have some talent but on a bad team the mistakes and weaknesses really stand out. I bet Gilmour on the Lightning would actually do fine. But on a team with a lot of ill-fitting parts, he's exposed.
It's just going to take time. But I think they're on the right track.

 

[Larrybiv]

Great stuff.

Re: Kreider situation. Sadly, from the looks of it, they were definitely shopping him around the TDL - Fielding offers, whatever you’d like to call it. To me, if they got good offers that trickle into the draft - we may see some action there. What would we even be looking at as a feasible package for him at the draft?

The saddest part is what you mentioned about even if we keep him he’ll likely be not what he’s getting paid to be by then..

Now let’s look at it this way - what would we get for a Kreider/Pionk package ?

Could be a freakin’ haul fellas.

Thanks for the compliment. Doesn't go around here often enough. Much more criticism, imo. Anyway, what I highlighted......I am kind of wondering if there are teams that actually "value" Pionk, more than what the majority of HF "feel" about Pionk. Seems to me the majority don't appreciate what he "does do", opposed to all of his defensive faults.
My opinion is that the poor kid was literally "thrown into" a role (22-25 mins. per game) in which he initially succeeded and was beyond all expectations. Shame really. His offensive success really set himself up to fail......and I partially blame Quinn and staff for that. But, I suppose......they may have had little choice. Tony? He was a big question mark and still had many "off ice issues". Shatty? Another question mark, as he was coming back from being injured. Smith? Haha. Just came back from an abysmal last season. Really no other right side alternatives. Had to play the kid. Too much in fact, and it has realky taken it's toll on him as the NHL is a very long and grinding schedule. IMO, that he has done well under the circumstances given him. They literally threw him under the bus. Good kid, never a complaint and plays harder than most here at HF give him credit for.

So again, in answer to your question......if there are feelers on another team wanting him to "eat up minutes", and yeah, he is young and still has time to learn and improve.....I dunno. I just as soon keep him and hope he improves. Not EVERYBODY can play those type minutes. And we really have no one else to do that right now, nor next year.
Just can't see how he would UP the package for Kreider, he himself should get us that "haul" that you speak of.
I would no sooner try and "dump" Shatty along with Kreider, at least we get rid of someone that ain't done a damned thing worth his pricetag, other than sell a couple of Jersey's.

 

[Larrybiv]

I think John Giannone is actually pretty good at what he does pre/post/between the benches.

The one thing I dislike is when Sam is out and he fills in for PBP.

Can I super like this? Everything you said is EXACTLY how I feel. I literally want to miss the game, if he is doing PBP. Cant figure out how i would listen elsewhere and still be able to stream the game off of NHL.tv.

 

[Blue Blooded]

I think John Giannone is actually pretty good at what he does pre/post/between the benches.

The one thing I dislike is when Sam is out and he fills in for PBP.

I mean score from the side is still one of my favourite HFNYR memes. The youtube video seems to be gone unfortunately.

 

[JHS]

Thanks for the compliment. Doesn't go around here often enough. Much more criticism, imo. Anyway, what I highlighted......I am kind of wondering if there are teams that actually "value" Pionk, more than what the majority of HF "feel" about Pionk. Seems to me the majority don't appreciate what he "does do", opposed to all of his defensive faults.
My opinion is that the poor kid was literally "thrown into" a role (22-25 mins. per game) in which he initially succeeded and was beyond all expectations. Shame really. His offensive success really set himself up to fail......and I partially blame Quinn and staff for that. But, I suppose......they may have had little choice. Tony? He was a big question mark and still had many "off ice issues". Shatty? Another question mark, as he was coming back from being injured. Smith? Haha. Just came back from an abysmal last season. Really no other right side alternatives. Had to play the kid. Too much in fact, and it has realky taken it's toll on him as the NHL is a very long and grinding schedule. IMO, that he has done well under the circumstances given him. They literally threw him under the bus. Good kid, never a complaint and plays harder than most here at HF give him credit for.

So again, in answer to your question......if there are feelers on another team wanting him to "eat up minutes", and yeah, he is young and still has time to learn and improve.....I dunno. I just as soon keep him and hope he improves. Not EVERYBODY can play those type minutes. And we really have no one else to do that right now, nor next year.
Just can't see how he would UP the package for Kreider, he himself should get us that "haul" that you speak of.
I would no sooner try and "dump" Shatty along with Kreider, at least we get rid of someone that ain't done a damned thing worth his pricetag, other than sell a couple of Jersey's.

I totally agree about the way Pionk has been handled. He’s been given a heck of a responsibility and done pretty well with it. He does have some major flaws in his game- namely he’s a really bad passer. His break out passes are not great and he’s indesisive with the puck. I’d like to see him work on this in the off season and if he does, I’d certainly be fine keeping him. Unfortunately, I kind of see his development a little bit like Brady’s. They are very different players but I think they were both given a lot of responsibility at an early age and that can be tough. Defending against the NHL’s top lines is tough and I’m not sure people always look at Pionk that way.

Regarding moving Kreider- it’s time. Arguably the Rangers would be selling pretty high but I’d be most interested in a package deal with him, Lias and a bunch of mid rounders to move up into the top 3-5 range. I’d even give up our first to move up( so exchange firsts to try for a generational talent.) If the Rangers hold on to Chris, my hunch is he may get moved at the deadline next year for something like a second rounder from a contending team( based on what Hayes and Zucc got this year.) I’d rather package him and move up now( package deals seem easier at draft time.)

 

[True Blue]

Rebuilding isn't surrendering, its a tactical retreat. Its losing the battle to have a better chance to win the war. The idea that we should continue down a path towards perpetual mediocrity, which really is the "easy thing" to do, is more of a surrender than taking the hard path of rebuilding.

Well said. That idea is why there's 1 Cup in nearly 80 years.

 

[True Blue]

I bet Gilmour on the Lightning would actually do fine. But on a team with a lot of ill-fitting parts, he's exposed.
It's just going to take time. But I think they're on the right track.

Not sure I agree. I don't think Gilmour is NHL capable, but hopefully he proves me wrong.

I do agree that they are on the right track. Sather ransacked the farm. Now they need to rebuild it and keep acquiring assets. Trust the process.

 

[Machinehead]

I see we're on another one of those vacations.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

I see we're on another one of those vacations.

NHL Schedule is consistently inconsistent

 

[kovazub94]

@JHS,

I happen to agree with you for the most part. I bet you're mid-40's/early 50's. Our generation does not understand tanking; I mean, we understand why, but it goes against everything we were taught as young athletes, students, and people in the working world. We were taught, if someone is beating you, work harder to get better. That's not the way it is these days. Now, it's, if someone is beating you, find a way to go somewhere else where you'll be the best. Instead of working harder, look for the handout.

It's the same thing with the Rangers here. The people around here think "winning the lottery" and drafting high is the only way to compete. I guess actually drafting well and trading well isn't possible. Lounging around and waiting for your savior to come via lottery is just the way it is now. It's utterly pathetic. But fits right in this world where people aren't that emotionally attached to their teams unless they're winning these days. So what if "my team" sucks for a decade; I'll just find something else to do until "my team" is "winning" again.

The Rangers are fairly new to this party. The Garden still cared about season tickets and trying to always be competitive until relatively recently. That's why ticket prices were never all that high compared to the rest of the league, even in expansion cities. Now, New York has caught up with the rest of the country with who's actually buying the tickets. It's not the guy who wants to go 40+ nights any more. That guy's been priced out. The league now caters to bandwagon ****face who drops $400 three times a season, and could care the **** less when the team is tanking.

Unfortunately, the millennials on here are perfectly fine with the tanking for the 20% chance it actually will pay off with a Cup. Because actually finishing 5th or 6th, and winning a round or two in the playoffs gives them no joy at all. They'd rather suck *** for 20 years and get ONE bite at the apple than having that chance every year. That's what grade inflation and participation trophies does to the brain.

If you’re in 40s-50s age group then you should be old enough to gain patience and perspective (and some wisdom) to understand the necessity of the rebuild and accept the pains that go with it. When I actually see impatient and overly critical posts I’m thinking “teenager”. Sorry to all levelheaded teens out there for the generalization.

 

[McRanger]

Really? You don’t think players need to learn to win? Winning does not just happen! Losing can stick with guys for a long time. These are professional athletes who want to win. If you don’t believe winning is learned just look at this year’s Ranger team. They can’t hold leads or win close games.

I am not saying that veteran leadership doesn't have its advantages, it does. I just think the idea that you "learn to win" is absurd. At least at the NHL level. You win consistently when your team is better consistently than the other team. The Penguins didn't start dominating because some cup winning veteran like Gary Roberts showed up, they started winning because Crosby and Malkin (who had probably been winning stuff since they were like 6 years old) showed up. If McDavid wins a cup it will be because they built a supporting team around him, not because he learned how to win.

Why do teams who want to win the cup always acquire veteran leadership at the deadline? Look at the Rangers in 94. They acquired loads of experienced winners to get them the cup. Why? Probably because the management knew that winning must be lived in order for players to understand what it takes to actually win.

Honestly? They made those trades because Keenan is a crazy person and it only worked because Brian Leetch (with zero cups and only 4 playoff series experience) looked like Bobby Orr for 2 months. I am as perplexed now as I was then about how trading Mike Gartner (who was great in '92) for Glen Anderson (and his 5000 Stanley cups) made the team any better.

 

[Winston2018]

If you’re in 40s-50s age group then you should be old enough to gain patience and perspective (and some wisdom) to understand the necessity of the rebuild and accept the pains that go with it. When I actually see impatient and overly critical posts I’m thinking “teenager”. Sorry to all levelheaded teens out there for the generalization.

Bam

 

[NCRanger]

If you’re in 40s-50s age group then you should be old enough to gain patience and perspective (and some wisdom) to understand the necessity of the rebuild and accept the pains that go with it. When I actually see impatient and overly critical posts I’m thinking “teenager”. Sorry to all levelheaded teens out there for the generalization.

And when you're my age, you also do rational analysis and realize that sucking for the sake of thinking it automatically makes the team better over time is a gamble that does not pay off without LUCK.

I've been a fan for 40+ years. I buy Center Ice to watch the Rangers. If the Rangers are going to suck, why bother buying it? Why care until they get better? And I'm one of those fans who watch 75 games a year. A die hard. If someone like me doesn't care, the average fan won't.

Someone made a snide comment about what "evidence" I have to the point that fans won't care? Any of these teams that suck out loud and play to 60% of capacity.

 

[Tawnos]

And when you're my age, you also do rational analysis and realize that sucking for the sake of thinking it automatically makes the team better over time is a gamble that does not pay off without LUCK.

The problem with this is that there literally isn’t anyone who thinks this way.

There are plenty of people who believe that it’s the only chance to bring in a franchise player, which I don’t agree with, but there isn’t anyone who thinks it’s automatic.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

And when you're my age, you also do rational analysis and realize that sucking for the sake of thinking it automatically makes the team better over time is a gamble that does not pay off without LUCK.

I have not seen one person argue this. However, the majority of us who are advocating for this path do believe that it's the only way to get a generational player, in his prime, in today's NHL.

And I basically disagree with your other point as well regarding 'die hards.' Sure, your point might be relevant in a niche market like Carolina, but in New York, not any longer....There are boatloads of casual or uninformed fans who watch a bunch of games and often go just for the fun of it. I have quite a few friends who watch and attend games and probably couldn't tell you 10 players on the team or even what place they're in. These are the people, along with the business networking group, who drive the business these days, not die hards like in the past. Moreover, with the affordability of travel, Rangers games have also become a tourist destination. You just can't compare the Rangers to other markets, unless they're Canadian. Like Toronto, they will continue to sell a lot of tickets irrespective of their performance.

Finally, I would presume that most people purchasing Center Ice are not Rangers fans, but hockey fans. Thus, the overall subscription numbers are very likely not impacted when a single team does not perform how you desire.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Delete

 

[JHS]

I am not saying that veteran leadership doesn't have its advantages, it does. I just think the idea that you "learn to win" is absurd. At least at the NHL level. You win consistently when your team is better consistently than the other team. The Penguins didn't start dominating because some cup winning veteran like Gary Roberts showed up, they started winning because Crosby and Malkin (who had probably been winning stuff since they were like 6 years old) showed up. If McDavid wins a cup it will be because they built a supporting team around him, not because he learned how to win.




Honestly? They made those trades because Keenan is a crazy person and it only worked because Brian Leetch (with zero cups and only 4 playoff series experience) looked like Bobby Orr for 2 months. I am as perplexed now as I was then about how trading Mike Gartner (who was great in '92) for Glen Anderson (and his 5000 Stanley cups) made the team any better.

Just the other day I was watching the NHL network. Stu Grimson was going on and on about how important leadership was in playoff runs. If you ever watch the Rangers who won in 94 talk about that run they all mention the veterans who knew how to win calmed the team down after the Devils tied it with such little time in the third. Alex Kovalev was amazing but not a leader. Go back and watch the reunion that just occurred and listen to his interview. He gives tons of credit to the leadership! I’ll listen to those guys who played in the league and were successful about how important leadership and winning is and how hard it is devoid of that!

Now, the Rangers don’t need a ton of veteran leadership right now. I’d at least like a captain though.

 

[will1066]

NHL Schedule is consistently inconsistent

The only thing that can slow down the tank is time.