Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XX (WTF are we going to do this Off-Season edition)

[Tawnos]

So Trouba can use whatever method his contract allows but Drury isn't?

Same contract for Trouba AND Drury

Same one for Goodrow AND Drury

FFS, did you even read the post you quoted?

 

[Siddi]

No man, those are the facts. There was no contact between Goodrow and Drury. Dude, he's not gonna give you lifetime free pizza and fountain drinks at Colony.

You are on a roll today brother. I am enjoying the ride

 

[Takeahnase]

I’d prefer if Drury was only president instead of having both jobs. I think he’s done a good job of identifying problems but been very hit or miss with addressing them. And culturally problems within the organization are more Dolan than anyone. He’s the common denominator. I’d love for him to sell and go focus on the Sphere. Maybe his kids will do better but historically that hasn’t been the case.

What is there to focus on at the Sphere? It’s not like it would take upa whole lot of time unless he’s swapping out LED’s.

 

[Levitate]

Gallant was pissed at Drury because of the stupid roster he constructed for him, there's nothing more to it than that. That team straight up wasn't good enough to beat the Devils.

That roster was mostly still Gorton

I think it's more likely Drury wanted Gallant to get in there and be more hands on coaching when the series was hanging in the balance and that wasn't Gallant's style. Gallant wanted a team he could point in the right direction, "motivate" them, and let them do the work.

Also not the first time Gallant clashed with a teams management! So I wouldn't put that one all on Drury

 

[Tawnos]

Agreed.

The reality is that coaches usually get the brunt of the blame because its relatively easy to change a coach. Which makes it more frustrating to me that they waited until the year ended to dismiss Lavi.

Putting the player personnel mgmt aside, Drury failed us by refusing to dismiss Lavi while the season was still salvageable. It seems like we wasted a year of our limited contention window with a coach that obviously had no solutions to refocus the team.

Yeah, Laviolette should have been fired in December. Once a coach loses a team, it's impossible to get them back. And whether Laviolette is truly responsible for the team being lost to him or not, it still happened.

 

[haohmaru]

And? All of that happened after what I'm talking about.

The Rangers, supposedly, had a deal with Columbus in place and it was nixed. The Rangers eventually accommodated Trouba and he landed in Anaheim. It was clear that all summer long they were trying to get rid of him and the options were limited because of his list. Detroit was a possibility but that apparently nixed as well on Trouba's end. We'll never know what we don't know. My tea leaves say that Drury tried to move him and he, and his agent, were strategic in their no trade lists to hamstring the Rangers. Many have speculated this on numerous podcasts as well, from Friedman on down.

You're entitled to your perspective. From mine, the Rangers clearly wanted to move a player that didn't want to be moved and tried to do everything to prevent it. It got uglier from there and maybe Goodrow suffered from the fallout of that.

 

[haohmaru]

No man, those are the facts. There was no contact between Goodrow and Drury. Dude, he's not gonna give you lifetime free pizza and fountain drinks at Colony.

You have the "facts" from one side of a two party deal. You're missing half the equation whether you believe that or not.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

However you feel about these moves (we can disagree) let's remember that these things happen during season, not in offseason.

I mean, that's half my gripe with him. Do this shit in the offseason like a normal person. Regardless of how his season went, I don't think Drury was wrong for extending Laf when he did. But the other stuff is a bit puzzling, at best.

 

[Riche16]

FFS, did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes I did.

That's the way it came across to me.

If I misunderstood, apologies.

 

[Levitate]

Yeah, Laviolette should have been fired in December. Once a coach loses a team, it's impossible to get them back. And whether Laviolette is truly responsible for the team being lost to him or not, it still happened.

I suspect the optics of a mid season fire in year 2 of a contract after the team went to the ECF the year before would be bad. The Rangers also hovered just enough around a playoff spot after Christmas that he was hesistant.

 

[SA16]

Homie, you keep changing your story. Yes, SJ was on his list of teams he couldn't be traded to. So to get around that, because he sucks at his job, Drury simply waived Goodrow and oh, what do you know San Jose had first dibs.

That would seem to be being good at his job. The same way teams "get around" the salary cap by using LTIR. Or the way teams have previously traded players before NTC kicked in and totally invalidated them (Jeff Carter). It's a flaw of the league and should be fixed in the new CBA. Why is it ok to use one loophole but not the other?

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

That would seem to be being good at his job. The same way teams "get around" the salary cap by using LTIR. Or the way teams have previously traded players before NTC kicked in and totally invalidated them (Jeff Carter). It's a flaw of the league and should be fixed in the new CBA.

You're right, he did nothing illegal, even if it violated the spirit of the NT. But yeah, heck of a year for Chris. He's a wizard. GM of the Year candidate for sure.

 

[Tawnos]

The Rangers, supposedly, had a deal with Columbus in place and it was nixed. The Rangers eventually accommodated Trouba and he landed in Anaheim. It was clear that all summer long they were trying to get rid of him and the options were limited because of his list. Detroit was a possibility but that apparently nixed as well on Trouba's end. We'll never know what we don't know. My tea leaves say that Drury tried to move him and he, and his agent, were strategic in their no trade lists to hamstring the Rangers. Many have speculated this on numerous podcasts as well, from Friedman on down.

You're entitled to your perspective. From mine, the Rangers clearly wanted to move a player that didn't want to be moved and tried to do everything to prevent it. It got uglier from there and maybe Goodrow suffered from the fallout of that.

Your timeline is all kinds of twisted around here.

1) The Goodrow waivers happened on June 24th.
2) The Trouba trade to Detroit really gained traction around the draft, a few days later. Trouba was still covered by his NMC that ran through June 30. After the draft ended on June 29th. So, with his NMC expiring and his new 15-team NTC coming into effect on July 1st, he submitted his no-trade list as he should have. Yes, this list only included teams he knew couldn't or wouldn't take him. There was also the leak that supposedly Trouba wouldn't report to another team. That effectively killed any trade possibilities that summer. But again, Trouba's part in this happens AFTER Drury tried to trade him without the heads up.
3) In November, Drury notifies the NHL GMs that he's going to try to trade Trouba again. He makes the threat about the waivers. Columbus and Anaheim make offers that Drury is willing to accept. Drury allows Trouba to choose between them, and he nixes the Columbus trade while accepting the Anaheim one.

 

[Tawnos]

I suspect the optics of a mid season fire in year 2 of a contract after the team went to the ECF the year before would be bad. The Rangers also hovered just enough around a playoff spot after Christmas that he was hesistant.

Maybe, but at that point the optics around the team were already really bad. Not sure it really would've made a dent in them.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

You son of a B, I'm in!

 

[Tawnos]

Yes I did.

That's the way it came across to me.

If I misunderstood, apologies.

The entire point of that post is that it's not about what Drury did, but how he treated players in the process of doing it. What he did was fine, and other teams (including previous Rangers GMs) have done the same. I was also thinking recently about how the rest of the team's reaction to it bears that out too. A lot of these guys are veterans and been around the league for a long time. The reaction should be telling us that those moves were handled differently than the norm. Guys understand it's a business, sometimes a harsh one, and mostly just want to be approached respectfully and courteously when harsh moves like that have to be made.

 

[Machinehead]

IMO this is a flawed premise.

We had no indication that they were shopping Chytil until he was included in the Miller deal.

Framing that trade as "finding a way to dump Chytil" is pure conjecture.

 

[Machinehead]

Hahahaha. Why? I like to see both sides of an argument whether I agree or not. And let's face it: its a message board, its all just talk.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Mika, I'd be very disappointed if the return for him is a third line plug.

I'd rather take a flier on a draft pick.

 

[Riche16]

FFS, did you even read the post you quoted?

Re-read it & it seems that you're calling Drury out for his treatment of players (which is odd because you started out with this isn't treatment of players).

He didn't inform Trouba or Goody beforehand.

When Drury announces to world he wants to trade someone this place goes nuts because "he's shown his hand" & won't get enough for said player (like Buch)

Then he goes the route he went & gets vilified for it.

My point was (is) that Drury can do whatever he wants, within his powers to make the changes he wants. I don't care if those players, or the rest of the team get butthurt by it.

Those are the contracts that were signed by both parties.

(I am NOT defending Drury here in that I don't feel he's a very good GM but not due to his treatment of players)

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

He also had an absolute f*** load of assets at his disposal including multiple top picks who's luster had not yet worn off, and no significant contracts outside of Kreider, Trouba, and Panarin, He could've gone in whatever direction he wanted. So naturally he traded Buch for steaming garbage and signed Goodrow to a 20M deal.

couldve gotten eichel for kakko/laf

instead we get goodrow

 

[Riche16]

The entire point of that post is that it's not about what Drury did, but how he treated players in the process of doing it. What he did was fine, and other teams (including previous Rangers GMs) have done the same. I was also thinking recently about how the rest of the team's reaction to it bears that out too. A lot of these guys are veterans and been around the league for a long time. The reaction should be telling us that those moves were handled differently than the norm. Guys understand it's a business, sometimes a harsh one, and mostly just want to be approached respectfully and courteously when harsh moves like that have to be made.

read my next post

 

[bhamill]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Mika, I'd be very disappointed if the return for him is a third line plug.

I'd rather take a flier on a draft pick.

So would I.

 

[Tawnos]

Re-read it & it seems that you're calling Drury out for his treatment of players (which is odd because you started out with this isn't treatment of players).

He didn't inform Trouba or Goody beforehand.

When Drury announces to world he wants to trade someone this place goes nuts because "he's shown his hand" & won't get enough for said player (like Buch)

Then he goes the route he went & gets vilified for it.

My point was (is) that Drury can do whatever he wants, within his powers to make the changes he wants. I don't care if those players, or the rest of the team get butthurt by it.

Those are the contracts that were signed by both parties.

(I am NOT defending Drury here in that I don't feel he's a very good GM but not due to his treatment of players)

I was saying that the post I was quoting wasn't about treatment of players. That poster had listed a bunch of harsh moves that have happened around the league without teams quitting, and I was pointing out the difference between those situations and what went on last June.

Plus, there's a difference between announcing to the world he wants to trade someone and not giving a player the heads up before doing so.

Just because Drury can do whatever he wants (within the confines of whichever contract we're talking about) doesn't mean there isn't a better and more respectful way to go about doing it than how he did. Really, that applies to a lot of life, not just how hockey GMs treat their players. The fact that I can do something doesn't mean I have to be a dick about it when I do.

 

[kovazub94]

Gallant was pissed at Drury because of the stupid roster he constructed for him, there's nothing more to it than that. That team straight up wasn't good enough to beat the Devils.

Huh, what roster moves happened between that team and the one that went to ECF next season???

Maybe we could have discussed talent level on that team. But the team did not show at all in 3 games of that series so whether or not there was enough talent become moot.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

Trouba was no doubt the leader of this team. Unfortunately he was also without question the worst captain in the modern history of the franchise. It really didn’t need to be that way, but it was.

He was not a leader. Enough press coverage about cliques tell a us all we need to know.
That’s on the Drury. Shouldn’t have been given the captaincy.
When he first got the C he talked in interviews about reading books on leadership and called up guys like Blake Wheeler.
Wheeler the guy who was run out of Winnipeg on a rail because of their caustic locker room.
Leaders are made organically, not theoretically.