Speculation: Roster Building thread: Part XIX (Thanks, Sam)

We're four years in with Drury. Is the team any better than when he took over?
No, basically. He’s overseen 2 conference final teams that his predecessor blatantly built so I guess there’s that.

His future vision for the team so far has been “collect every bottom pairing defender in the league, overpay a goalie for a million years who will be on the wrong side of 30, and trade for a 32 year old head case center-that’s-probably-a-winger.
 
McDonagh - waive your NTC or we'll waive you
Stamkos - hasta la bye bye thanks for the memories
March on Marchand see ya!
Mikko "No mo'" Rantanen

Just a couple. Recent. All of them a little more significant than Barclay f***ing Goodrow.

Stop it.
Goodrow was obviously not as significant as a player as those 4, probably not as significant as part of the locker room either. However, the way they handled the Goodrow situation is not really comparable to those other 4 situations. The Goodrow situation was technically legal, but very much circumventing the spirit of his NTC. The other 4 situations were not the same.
 
Goodrow was obviously not as significant as a player as those 4, probably not as significant as part of the locker room either. However, the way they handled the Goodrow situation is not really comparable to those other 4 situations. The Goodrow situation was technically legal, but very much circumventing the spirit of his NTC. The other 4 situations were not the same.
To be fair, the McDonagh situation would've been exactly the same as the Goodrow situation if he didn't agree to waive to go to Nashville.
 
To be fair, the McDonagh situation would've been exactly the same as the Goodrow situation if he didn't agree to waive to go to Nashville.
Technically, yes. The difference is that Brisebois and Tampa actually worked with McDonagh to find a place for him, whereas Drury apparently didn't even ask Goodrow anything, because he had already worked it out with Grier that they would claim him and just put him on waivers to be claimed by a team that was on his NTC.

Technically legal, but scummy behaviour TBH. I don't mind it, I don't feel sorry for Goodrow, but you can see how that would rub the players in a wrong way.

Do I think it has had or will have an effect on how New York is perceived as a destination? Noh, because that goes beyond Chris Drury. The Rangers could be (and often seem to be) a mess, they will always be desireable.
 
I have a hard time getting behind the “players quit” narrative when half these guys appear to be following an entirely predictable aging curve and the other half, I’m not sure how good they were to begin with.

Is Kreider “quitting” or is he just going through the inevitable decline a 33 year old NHL player usually goes through and we are all inventing a narrative to make ourselves feel better, that the org isn’t on the downswing.
Nailed it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead
Goodrow was obviously not as significant as a player as those 4, probably not as significant as part of the locker room either. However, the way they handled the Goodrow situation is not really comparable to those other 4 situations. The Goodrow situation was technically legal, but very much circumventing the spirit of his NTC. The other 4 situations were not the same.

What? Goodrow was more important to "the room" than the Captain (Stamkos) was?

I'll disagree entirely. McD - "Waive your No Trade or we'll waive you" is exactly what the Rangers did. They asked him to waive to San Jose, he said no, they waived him. They aren't required to disclose anything and shouldn't have given what happened when they got Trouba's list and his agent manipulated it to the point that the Rangers were so hamstrung that they couldn't do anything.

Rantaanen was blown away that he was traded and had no idea it was coming.

None of these situations are "the same" but they rarely are given the complex nature of contracts, their clauses, the performance of the player(s), etc...

The truth of the matter is that both parties should, and do, what's best for themselves at all times. That's the nature of the business.

Crying into their Cheerios for two months at the loss of an overpaid role player is inexcusable. Drury doesn't "owe" the team anything other than trying to make it better.
 
Technically, yes. The difference is that Brisebois and Tampa actually worked with McDonagh to find a place for him, whereas Drury apparently didn't even ask Goodrow anything, because he had already worked it out with Grier that they would claim him and just put him on waivers to be claimed by a team that was on his NTC.

Technically legal, but scummy behaviour TBH. I don't mind it, I don't feel sorry for Goodrow, but you can see how that would rub the players in a wrong way.

Do I think it has had or will have an effect on how New York is perceived as a destination? Noh, because that goes beyond Chris Drury. The Rangers could be (and often seem to be) a mess, they will always be desireable.

Like I said in my previous post, Drury tried to "work with" Trouba and got completely scorched. No way he should've done it again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boris Zubov
We're four years in with Drury. Is the team any better than when he took over?
Considering the circumstances of his hire and what he was given, it's been pretty good. We also do not know what directive he was given by Dolan. Clearly he wanted something different from what Gorton was providing, whether that was on the physical side of things (remember this was post-Wilson) or the standings wise.

I'm more concerned with his coaching choices than his personnel choices. Gallant was jettisoned from Vegas after making a Cup Final with him. Laviolette has a similar track record, but again if Dolan is asking for them to contend, are you going to go with rookie coaches?

His two big f*** ups are Buchnevich and Eichel, with the latter being something that could still be debated at the time of the trade. The Buch deal was horrendous the moment it was official. Eichel was a risk and Mika was a very good player still.

Regarding Goodrow, everyone was saying either a buyout or trade by year 3 or 4 and it went exactly like that. The contract was basically structured that way. Is it his fault his 8M 2nd pairing RD turned into mush? Lindgren also fell off a cliff at a much earlier age than we expected, even if we knew it was going to happen. Gorton traded and signed Trouba and he retained Kreider at the 2020 deadline. Then you had the DeAngelo contract which had to be bought out.

Drury's biggest moves have been Trocheck, Miller, and the Mika/Laf/Igor extensions. I'd say the jury is still out on each of these moves, although Trocheck has been good since he was brought in to be a 2C and has exceeded those expectations.
 
Considering the circumstances of his hire and what he was given, it's been pretty good. We also do not know what directive he was given by Dolan. Clearly he wanted something different from what Gorton was providing, whether that was on the physical side of things (remember this was post-Wilson) or the standings wise.

I'm more concerned with his coaching choices than his personnel choices. Gallant was jettisoned from Vegas after making a Cup Final with him. Laviolette has a similar track record, but again if Dolan is asking for them to contend, are you going to go with rookie coaches?

His two big f*** ups are Buchnevich and Eichel, with the latter being something that could still be debated at the time of the trade. The Buch deal was horrendous the moment it was official. Eichel was a risk and Mika was a very good player still.

Regarding Goodrow, everyone was saying either a buyout or trade by year 3 or 4 and it went exactly like that. The contract was basically structured that way. Is it his fault his 8M 2nd pairing RD turned into mush? Lindgren also fell off a cliff at a much earlier age than we expected, even if we knew it was going to happen. Gorton traded and signed Trouba and he retained Kreider at the 2020 deadline. Then you had the DeAngelo contract which had to be bought out.

Drury's biggest moves have been Trocheck, Miller, and the Mika/Laf/Igor extensions. I'd say the jury is still out on each of these moves, although Trocheck has been good since he was brought in to be a 2C and has exceeded those expectations.

I'll agree about Buchnevich.

Eichel, though, seems like the Sabres owner gave an edict to not trade to the Rangers. That's something Drury can't do a whole lot about.

Jury is still out on Drury. Only now is he really shaping this team to be "his" for better or worse.
 
I have a hard time getting behind the “players quit” narrative when half these guys appear to be following an entirely predictable aging curve and the other half, I’m not sure how good they were to begin with.

Is Kreider “quitting” or is he just going through the inevitable decline a 33 year old NHL player usually goes through and we are all inventing a narrative to make ourselves feel better, that the org isn’t on the downswing.

Nah man! Conspiracy theories are more fun on here.
 
Othmann does deserve a long leash. Even if he has a ways left to develop, he has a lot of the tools that could easily translate into a middle 6 wing role. The team is going to need contributions from guys on ELC contracts.
The encouraging thing about Othmann is that he's getting to the dirty areas. In the past, he has depended too much on his shot. Adding a bevy of ugly goals to his repertoire will only help. We don't have enough players who are willing to score the ugly goals.
 
No, basically. He’s overseen 2 conference final teams that his predecessor blatantly built so I guess there’s that.

His future vision for the team so far has been “collect every bottom pairing defender in the league, overpay a goalie for a million years who will be on the wrong side of 30, and trade for a 32 year old head case center-that’s-probably-a-winger.
Don't forget "make every single draft pick a big bottom six winger."
 
I have a hard time getting behind the “players quit” narrative when half these guys appear to be following an entirely predictable aging curve and the other half, I’m not sure how good they were to begin with.

Is Kreider “quitting” or is he just going through the inevitable decline a 33 year old NHL player usually goes through and we are all inventing a narrative to make ourselves feel better, that the org isn’t on the downswing.

It's not just the older guys it's everyone right from the goalie out.
 
Are we back to "Drury should be fired because he's mean?" Give me a f***ing break. Hahahaha. He's done nothing that pretty much any GM in the league wouldn't do. And it's all been 100% above board business. You don't think so? PROVE IT. I don't care how big of a dick he is if he gets the job done.
You want to argue he's done a bad job as GM? Whether I agree or not, its a valid tact. Fine, argue it all day, but this whole angle of him not being sensitive enough of players' feelings? What f***ing nonsense. They can cry me a motherf***ing RIVER.

No other GM in the league comes down to a dressing room to tune up players at the start of a season, none. Walking into a dressingroom and doing that undermines development and it also undermines the coach. Who's gonna respect the coach when they know at any time the GM is gonna bust through and over rule him. It absolutely never happened on any team I was on, it absolutely should not be happening at the Ahl level.
 
Up in the Blue Seats podcast:

Brooks is such a flip flopper. Last week, Brooks was complaining about how the Rangers play and their stubbornness. They don't play north and south. East and west doesn't work. The Rangers refuse to forecheck. They refuse to get the puck in deep. The Rangers don't play the right way. I am sure Panarin is one of the main culprits or THE main culprit.

This week, Brooks wants the Rangers to extend Panarin this summer. Next season, Brooks will start complaining about the same things all over again. The Rangers win a few games. Keep everyone. The Rangers lose a few games. Get rid of everyone.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad