Speculation: Roster Building Thread : Part XV (Light em up!)

[noncents]

i think chmelar will be an impact 3rd liner in the nhl.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

We're like 6-1-2 since we traded Kakko with Borgen playing a key role in the better defensive play. How the f*** is it biting the Rangers? It might in the future but the records of the two teams says otherwise about it biting us NOW. I'm starting to really hate Rangers fans.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

We're like 6-1-2 since we traded Kakko with Borgen playing a key role in the better defensive play. How the f*** is it biting the Rangers? It might in the future but the records of the two teams says otherwise about it biting us NOW. I'm starting to really hate Rangers fans.

The Rangers are better because they added Borgen, not because they offloaded Kakko.

If you wanted Borgen, you just trade a 4th rounder for him and call it a day. Giving up Kakko for Borgen, a depth D-man who is UFA this summer, is not a good trade regardless of how well Borgen plays for us.

 

[SA16]

The Rangers are better because they added Borgen, not because they offloaded Kakko.

If you wanted Borgen, you just trade a 4th rounder for him and call it a day. Giving up Kakko for Borgen, a depth D-man who is UFA this summer, is not a good trade regardless of how well Borgen plays for us.

If they could have got Borgen for a 4th I’m sure they would have done so.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The Rangers are better because they added Borgen, not because they offloaded Kakko.

If you wanted Borgen, you just trade a 4th rounder for him and call it a day. Giving up Kakko for Borgen, a depth D-man who is UFA this summer, is not a good trade regardless of how well Borgen plays for us.

If we weren't resigning Kakko what exactly were you expecting for him? If the guy wasn't a 2nd overall pick none of the pearl clutching would be happening. Why must a trade be only good if the team improves by offloading a player? Not every trade was going to be a Trouba trade where the player is horrible. We were likely not resigning Kakko anyway and we got a decent return for him. Solid defenseman who we might resign or trade for a decent pick and two picks is not a bad trade for a career 3rd liner. It's only a bad trade because people can't let go of his draft position.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

If we weren't resigning Kakko what exactly were you expecting for him? If the guy wasn't a 2nd overall pick none of the pearl clutching would be happening. Why must a trade be only good if the team improves by offloading a player? Not every trade was going to be a Trouba trade where the player is horrible. We were likely not resigning Kakko anyway and we got a decent return for him. Solid defenseman who we might resign or trade for a decent pick and two picks is not a bad trade for a career 3rd liner. It's only a bad trade because people can't let go of his draft position.

This is Buchnevich all over again.

Trading Kakko was the right move. Trading him for a pending UFA depth D-man and 2 late picks, is not.

The same way trading Buchnevich was the right move, but getting an injury-prone 4th liner and a 2nd round pick, was not.

Kakko being traded 2 days after he criticised the coaching decision that saw him healthy scratched, reeks of amateurism. He wasn't traded for the right return, he was traded just to get rid of him. That's how you lose trades.

 

[LokiDog]

it's absolutely relevant to the building of this roster at present and future to discuss whether this team can or can not properly develop and successfully deploy impact forwards, and why or why not.

i'm sorry, but references to kakko are a germane facet of that discussion. not "boo hoo we traded my favorite funny boi" or "lmao drury sux kakko ppg suck it," but actual observation. is anyone watching the kraken? or just reading box scores?

in fact, it's specifically an extremely useful case study for this generally accepted issue with the Rangers..

for example, to @SnowblindNYR point, did Seattle "develop him in 14 games?" Or did they take a player and deploy him properly, infuse him with confidence, and line him up with the right teammates? aka put him in a position to succeed?

Or is this a streak, borne perhaps of greater effort resulting from the trade? Or just mere shooting PDO luck - a complete nothingburger?

Again, really important things to talk about. We are looking at Lafreniere, a player who - like kakko - was universally regarded as having superstar potential. don't want to litigate the semantics of superstar, star, generational, elite. The point is: they were supposed to be GOOD.

I keep thinking about what @Machinehead would always condemn Kakko for - and now does the same for Laf: "he's the same bum he was when he came into the league."

I think about how we see other players on other teams take steps and leaps to grow in their efficacy and utility. They begin to do more things well. Lundell. Jarvis. Harley.

I think about how, yes, these are professional athletes, but that maybe Kakko previously and Laf now looking like the same players they've always been is the whole point. That's the disconnect. Players don't come into the league fully formed, as skilled as they may be. Talent, the kind that goes 1 or 2 overall, isn't just what they showed in juniors: it's an ability to grow and get better *better than peers.*

Our guys largely haven't been getting better *better than others.* In fact, they haven't really been getting better *at all.*

I believe the organization is to blame. I don't have a solution, because i don't know where the responsibility lies. But we need to be better at facilitating our young players to get better. They're just pretty much staying the same.

Take Cuylle - an example of relatively successful development.

He's PKing this year and flourishing in that role. Has he gotten better, though? Is he doing things he wasn't doing last year - structurally, defensively, individually, statistically?

I'm not well versed enough in either hockey game within the game (@LokiDog, your thoughts) or advanced metrics (@Machinehead) to be able to truly evaluate his individual play - let alone within the different line contexts, and context of the teams up and downs.

But to me, it feels like he's the same player being given a slightly longer leash. It looks like the team said "hey he can skate okay, he plays good physical D, he can give up the body... Will, you PK now."

does anyone see evidence of his growth as a player?

To my mind, we do not develop players at all. Fil Chytil is still like 41% on face offs and he’s like a 6th year player who could even work on improving face offs while being on IR. Sidney Crosby was 45% on face offs as a rookie and 48% as a sophomore. The next couple were right at 50%. He’s now nearly 53% career and usually in the 55% range. McDavid was 41%, 43%, 41%, 47%, 48%, 49%, 54%, 52%, 51%. Face offs are absolutely one of the skills that you can directly improve through practice and guidance. Like not everyone can develop Matthews’ release. Everyone can work on face offs. Laf and Kakko’s skating never improved. Face offs don’t improve.

Nothing improves. Sure we may give a guy some more minutes or let them PK, but they aren’t changing as players at all. They aren’t making more mature reads on plays to take a different line to the puck or cut off a pass. They aren’t learning to adjust to play against different defensive systems. Any development that happens is 100% personal and accidental, through on-the-spot learning where a light bulb goes off and you start realizing if you take the inside route to the puck instead of the outside you always get their a step quicker. The strategy for developing players cannot be “just go play hockey until a light bulb goes off”.

I have always believed that our coaches do not coach at all. They’re like figure heads that talk to the refs and the press. Occasionally do some yelling and foot stomping in the room. No teaching. No new systems. No refining existing habits and behaviors. “Go out there and play”. And that’s what we see every night. They don’t transition up and down the ice as a well oiled unit. They look like a drop-in group. Oh, that’s guys open, I’ll try passing to him. Which is crazy, because this group has been together for a pretty long time relative to many teams core groups. Utah hasn’t had nearly as long together to learn each others every tendency, yet they flew up the ice in transition and their group zone entries were beautiful the other night. That’s an actual strategy and focus. That’s intentional. Players brought to that team are expected to learn their breakout system, their set plays in the neutral zone, their zone entries and adapt to play that. With speed. The Rangers just go out and see what they can do each night.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

This is Buchnevich all over again.

Trading Kakko was the right move. Trading him for a pending UFA depth D-man and 2 late picks, is not.

The same way trading Buchnevich was the right move, but getting an injury-prone 4th liner and a 2nd round pick, was not.

Kakko being traded 2 days after he criticised the coaching decision that saw him healthy scratched, reeks of amateurism. He wasn't traded for the right return, he was traded just to get rid of him. That's how you lose trades.

But being a pending UFA is not necessarily terrible. They can resign him or trade him at the deadline. And you're comparing a trade where Buchnevich was a better player at the time of the draft Borgen is a better player than Blais ever was. This trade is nothing like the Buchnevich trade if they resign Borgen or trade him for a good pick.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

But being a pending UFA is not necessarily terrible. They can resign him or trade him at the deadline. And you're comparing a trade where Buchnevich was a better player at the time of the draft Borgen is a better player than Blais ever was. This trade is nothing like the Buchnevich trade if they resign Borgen or trade him for a good pick.

Being a UFA limits his value in a trade. Giving up Kakko for Borgen and 2 late picks is a bad trade. If you wanted Borgen, you trade a 4th at most for him. He was a 6th D-men in Seattle, weeks away from being placed on waivers, being outplayed by Mahura.

This trade is very much like Buchnevich because they gave Kakko away for less than what he was worth, just like Buchnevich.

 

[noncents]

To my mind, we do not develop players at all. Fil Chytil is still like 41% on face offs and he’s like a 6th year player who could even work on improving face offs while being on IR. Sidney Crosby was 45% on face offs as a rookie and 48% as a sophomore. The next couple were right at 50%. He’s now nearly 53% career and usually in the 55% range. McDavid was 41%, 43%, 41%, 47%, 48%, 49%, 54%, 52%, 51%. Face offs are absolutely one of the skills that you can directly improve through practice and guidance. Like not everyone can develop Matthews’ release. Everyone can work on face offs. Laf and Kakko’s skating never improved. Face offs don’t improve.

Nothing improves. Sure we may give a guy some more minutes or let them PK, but they aren’t changing as players at all. They aren’t making more mature reads on plays to take a different line to the puck or cut off a pass. They aren’t learning to adjust to play against different defensive systems. Any development that happens is 100% personal and accidental, through on-the-spot learning where a light bulb goes off and you start realizing if you take the inside route to the puck instead of the outside you always get their a step quicker. The strategy for developing players cannot be “just go play hockey until a light bulb goes off”.

I have always believed that our coaches do not coach at all. They’re like figure heads that talk to the refs and the press. Occasionally do some yelling and foot stomping in the room. No teaching. No new systems. No refining existing habits and behaviors. “Go out there and play”. And that’s what we see every night. They don’t transition up and down the ice as a well oiled unit. They look like a drop-in group. Oh, that’s guys open, I’ll try passing to him. Which is crazy, because this group has been together for a pretty long time relative to many teams core groups. Utah hasn’t had nearly as long together to learn each others every tendency, yet they flew up the ice in transition and their group zone entries were beautiful the other night. That’s an actual strategy and focus. That’s intentional. Players brought to that team are expected to learn their breakout system, their set plays in the neutral zone, their zone entries and adapt to play that. With speed. The Rangers just go out and see what they can do each night.

good timing. go read what i just wrote in your podcast thread.

An experientially researched, factually based and narratively communicated exploration of this topic is what NYR fans want and deserve.

maybe instead of a podcast it could be a short form audio series. call it 6 episodes. go in depth and educate. hell if it was well done id pay for it

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Being a UFA limits his value in a trade. Giving up Kakko for Borgen and 2 late picks is a bad trade. If you wanted Borgen, you trade a 4th at most for him. He was a 6th D-men in Seattle, weeks away from being placed on waivers, being outplayed by Mahura.

This trade is very much like Buchnevich because they gave Kakko away for less than what he was worth, just like Buchnevich.

So only the Rangers can be misusing their players? So Kakko is misused here but there's no chance that Borgen was in Seattle? I don't care what Borgen did in Seattle in a defense he wasn't a fit for. I care that he has been good here. Borgen had seasons where he was good outside of this defense too.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

All the healthy scratches in HFD from yesterday are back playing today. Further proof the trade, whatever it was for Miller, is dead for now. Thankfully.

 

[MrAlmost]

What a blue ball franchise. Can't make good trades. Can't make bad trades. Guy is literally poisoning their team and the owner won't trade with us. What a world.

 

[Savant]

We're like 6-1-2 since we traded Kakko with Borgen playing a key role in the better defensive play. How the f*** is it biting the Rangers? It might in the future but the records of the two teams says otherwise about it biting us NOW. I'm starting to really hate Rangers fans.

You were thirsty so I traded you a bottle of water for you giving me a $20 bill. You drank the water and aren’t thirsty anymore. You’ll be thirsty again soon

We didn’t need to trade Kakko to get Borgen/Borgen type dman

 

[smoneil]

The Rangers are better because they added Borgen, not because they offloaded Kakko.

If you wanted Borgen, you just trade a 4th rounder for him and call it a day. Giving up Kakko for Borgen, a depth D-man who is UFA this summer, is not a good trade regardless of how well Borgen plays for us.

Would like this twice if I could. It was the same issue with the Buch trade. The problem wasn't trying to get a guy like Sammy Blais. The problem was trading a tier 1 piece for a tier 3 piece. Drury doesn't learn. He knows what has value to him but seems oblivious to the idea that something he doesn't value might have great value to someone else.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You were thirsty so I traded you a bottle of water for you giving me a $20 bill. You drank the water and aren’t thirsty anymore. You’ll be thirsty again soon

We didn’t need to trade Kakko to get Borgen/Borgen type dman

They weren't resigning him. What haul were you looking for with Kakko. He was not some stud he was an inconsistent third liner. A good second pairing defenseman which as far as I know Borgen was before he was playing a defense not suited for him and is playing like again is equal value to a second pairing defenseman.

Would like this twice if I could. It was the same issue with the Buch trade. The problem wasn't trying to get a guy like Sammy Blais. The problem was trading a tier 1 piece for a tier 3 piece. Drury doesn't learn. He knows what has value to him but seems oblivious to the idea that something he doesn't value might have great value to someone else.

In what world Kakko independent of the draft a tier 1 piece? His play on the ice is on the same tier as a second pairing defenseman.

 

[CLW]

I agree about Zib, there's been too much smoke that he won't waive for a west coast team, plus I don't think the discussions get that far along without seeing if he's amenable to Vancouver move. You're not scratching players in Hartford, nor is Friedman leaking that Miller might sit out if there's a NMC holding things up.

I said last night the deal could've been on the 5 yard line, then Allvin saw Fil's medicals & that was enough to give him pause. Someone else speculated that there was retention involved & the Canucks owner put the kabosh on it.

Somehow I don't think this is the end of it. Something's gotta give in their locker room & our GM seems like this is the guy he wants. Feels like a deal gets done in the near future.

To my mind, we do not develop players at all. Fil Chytil is still like 41% on face offs and he’s like a 6th year player who could even work on improving face offs while being on IR. Sidney Crosby was 45% on face offs as a rookie and 48% as a sophomore. The next couple were right at 50%. He’s now nearly 53% career and usually in the 55% range. McDavid was 41%, 43%, 41%, 47%, 48%, 49%, 54%, 52%, 51%. Face offs are absolutely one of the skills that you can directly improve through practice and guidance. Like not everyone can develop Matthews’ release. Everyone can work on face offs. Laf and Kakko’s skating never improved. Face offs don’t improve.

Nothing improves. Sure we may give a guy some more minutes or let them PK, but they aren’t changing as players at all. They aren’t making more mature reads on plays to take a different line to the puck or cut off a pass. They aren’t learning to adjust to play against different defensive systems. Any development that happens is 100% personal and accidental, through on-the-spot learning where a light bulb goes off and you start realizing if you take the inside route to the puck instead of the outside you always get their a step quicker. The strategy for developing players cannot be “just go play hockey until a light bulb goes off”.

I have always believed that our coaches do not coach at all. They’re like figure heads that talk to the refs and the press. Occasionally do some yelling and foot stomping in the room. No teaching. No new systems. No refining existing habits and behaviors. “Go out there and play”. And that’s what we see every night. They don’t transition up and down the ice as a well oiled unit. They look like a drop-in group. Oh, that’s guys open, I’ll try passing to him. Which is crazy, because this group has been together for a pretty long time relative to many teams core groups. Utah hasn’t had nearly as long together to learn each others every tendency, yet they flew up the ice in transition and their group zone entries were beautiful the other night. That’s an actual strategy and focus. That’s intentional. Players brought to that team are expected to learn their breakout system, their set plays in the neutral zone, their zone entries and adapt to play that. With speed. The Rangers just go out and see what they can do each night.

What development there has been has been due to the offseason efforts by the kids. Chytil clearly has solid support back home in the Czech Republic, he's worked as hard as anyone, or more than anyone on the Rangers, to develop his leg strength e.g (see Jagr). Laf worked hard to develop his skating as we saw the previous season. Kakko has the Turku tradition that saved his bacon from the NYR lunacy. Kreider is an absolute specimen whose extraordinary athleticism bought him the time to develop innately.

Chytil has survived because of his immense stubbornness and drive. Laffy is surviving because of his status as 1OA (NYR hockey politics) and he does play well in spurts. Kakko, who never fit in with the Rangers, stuck to his guns (his own game) and is now off the team. But there is more to this than mere survival, the kids need to thrive. Why do NYR kids struggle so much? Fox did alright, but then he came in as more or less a ready Norris candidate.

 

[smoneil]

They weren't resigning him. What haul were you looking for with Kakko. He was not some stud he was an inconsistent third liner. A good second pairing defenseman which as far as I know Borgen was before he was playing a defense not suited for him and is playing like again is equal value to a second pairing defenseman.



In what world Kakko independent of the draft a tier 1 piece? His play on the ice is on the same tier as a second pairing defenseman.

The only reason I would have moved him in the first place is if he asked out (which I suspect he did). He was part of our best line to that point of the season, showed effort when nobody else on the roster was, and was defensively responsible when the team was leaking goals. And the team traded him for a D man who was regularly getting discarded by a semi-recent expansion team and a couple of late picks.

If Seattle wanted Kakko--trade him for a 2nd round pick or better.
If the Rangers wanted Borgen--trade a 4th or 5th round pick for him.

You don't merge the two deals only to get back less than you would if you made them separately. But that's seemingly one of Drury's signature moves.

 

[noncents]

They weren't resigning him. What haul were you looking for with Kakko. He was not some stud he was an inconsistent third liner. A good second pairing defenseman which as far as I know Borgen was before he was playing a defense not suited for him and is playing like again is equal value to a second pairing defenseman.



In what world Kakko independent of the draft a tier 1 piece? His play on the ice is on the same tier as a second pairing defenseman.

what everyone you're responding to is implying is that Kakko, much like a caterpillar pining for the cocoon, was capable of being much more than merely an "inconsistent third liner." that he looked like that is more a reflection on the team and organization than the player.

the important question here is: if it's true that he is capable of being more effective, productive, and valuable than he appeared to be here, then what gives??

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

So only the Rangers can be misusing their players? So Kakko is misused here but there's no chance that Borgen was in Seattle? I don't care what Borgen did in Seattle in a defense he wasn't a fit for. I care that he has been good here. Borgen had seasons where he was good outside of this defense too.

I never said Borgen wasn't mismanaged. I didn't even mention that. Regardless of how Borgen was handled in Seattle, his value was low. Borgen was, at most, worth a 4th rounder this early in the season. If you really wanted Borgen to improve our blueline, you trade for him. It makes ZERO sense to dump Kakko for that package.

Like I said: Trading Kakko was not the issue. Giving him away for the mediocre package we got, is. I don't care how well Borgen is playing. It's still a bad trade because on the day the value wasn't there. Drury rushed it because Kakko was done keeping his mouth shut after he was (Once again) singled out as the problem on a team that has perennial underperformers making twice what he's getting paid.

Buchnevich was traded for spare parts, so was Kakko. That's not good business.

 

[noncents]

another idea i've just had regarding the player development vs player deployment idea is the expansion team example.

Vegas didn't develop any of their players, but many of them took a step forward together when put on the same team. guys that seemed like castoffs or busts with pedigree found the ability to contribute.

why is that? was it just underutilized talent? confidence? on ice chemistry? off ice chip on the shoulder brazen will, sustained?

the theoretical parallel here is that Kakko was an inherently an underutilized asset, a depressed-value asset, who merely required some external change to realize potential.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The only reason I would have moved him in the first place is if he asked out (which I suspect he did). He was part of our best line to that point of the season, showed effort when nobody else on the roster was, and was defensively responsible when the team was leaking goals. And the team traded him for a D man who was regularly getting discarded by a semi-recent expansion team and a couple of late picks.

If Seattle wanted Kakko--trade him for a 2nd round pick or better.
If the Rangers wanted Borgen--trade a 4th or 5th round pick for him.

You don't merge the two deals only to get back less than you would if you made them separately. But that's seemingly one of Drury's signature moves.

Is 2nd pairing defenseman a 3rd round pick and a later round pick that far from a 2nd round pick?

 

[bl02]

All the healthy scratches in HFD from yesterday are back playing today. Further proof the trade, whatever it was for Miller, is dead for now. Thankfully.

and the kids are playing well. Let them develop the right way in Hartford. Don't trade them please.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I never said Borgen wasn't mismanaged. I didn't even mention that. Regardless of how Borgen was handled in Seattle, his value was low. Borgen was, at most, worth a 4th rounder this early in the season. If you really wanted Borgen to improve our blueline, you trade for him. It makes ZERO sense to dump Kakko for that package.

Like I said: Trading Kakko was not the issue. Giving him away for the mediocre package we got, is. I don't care how well Borgen is playing. It's still a bad trade because on the day the value wasn't there. Drury rushed it because Kakko was done keeping his mouth shut after he was (Once again) singled out as the problem on a team that has perennial underperformers making twice what he's getting paid.

Buchnevich was traded for spare parts, so was Kakko. That's not good business.

Borgen has already done more for this team than Sammy Blais ever has, I don't see the connection. Also, maybe Borgen's value was low, but so was Kakko's. It was higher than last year. But not like he was lighting the world on fire when we traded him. It's revisionist history pretending he was something he was not. All we did was bitch about him and how we got Kakko when the Devils got Hughes. Why are we acting like he was something he was not over here?

 

[SA16]

I don't think Kakko had particularly high value considering we know Drury sent a message to all teams in the league indicating many players were available so if there was a better offer on the table he surely would have taken it.