Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XXVII

[mas0764]

Or he just goes to the f***ing ahl to get into shape instead of sacrificing the "optimal roster" for the NHL team bc he is put first. Holy shit...

I just can't do it anymore.

Goodnight...

YES I AGREE. BUT HE DIDN'T.

SO HE GETS BLAME.

But then it falls back on the team to ameliorate the issue, and they also failed.

 

[mas0764]

Sorry, cannot take you seriously or entertain the rest of your crybaby post when it starts off with you somehow knowing the team would have been “fine” had they just handed over a Top 6 role to Kravtsov. That is quite amazing that you somehow know this so assuredly.

It's equally amazing that you know it would be a problem, without a shred of evidence.

It's too bad this has had to digress to name calling.

What I do know is the team is 5-2-1 and have yet to really play their best hockey. Maybe, just maybe they are doing something right.

They are doing a lot of things right.

They are also doing some things wrong.

I get it, people want to be happy about the team and not have to hear any negativity.

But that's not the truth of the situation. The team should have handled this differently to preserve Kravtsov the asset or to preserve Kravtsov the future top 6 NY Ranger, because he or someone like what he was projected to be is much needed here.

You wana die on this hill, going on and on and on and on about a player who is not coming back then so be it. I’ll keep rooting for my team and enjoying the early success they have had.

Yes, I do want people to understand this is a bad move by the organization. I want them to understand when I f***ing say "they should trade DeAngelo for a top 10 pick," that I don't have to listen to idiots tell me how we can't move him for a top 10 pick because Fox is unproven. I don't want to hear people tell me that we can't trade Buch for a top 6 center prospect because our RW depth is unproven to then have them go out and trade Buch for a middle six grinder. I don't want the old-heads on here blocking me because they are offended when I claim with all evidence that talent is more important than experience.

If they had managed their roster differently this wouldn't be a problem and it wouldn't be a big deal that they draw a line in the sand with Kravtsov.

But they cut off this build too early, they f***ed it up with Anderson, ADA and now Kravtsov, and all of a sudden we are decidedly short on future top 6 players. We have maybe one full line to build our future around in Laf-Chytil-Kakko, and have no other elite, top-6 talent in the pipeline at all, and as a team with a full head of steam towards making the playoffs every year we are gonna have no surefire way to draft any more elite top 6 talent. It will take a long, long shot to pry another Brayden Point out of a draft to get us over the hump.

This is an unforgiveable sin after this rebuild was going so well.

Bailing on Kravtsov after failing to monetize Anderson or ADA is like strike three.

It's a big god damn problem. It has to be rectified.

Again, if they win a Kravtsov trade I'll forgive all this. But that's damn near impossible now. We'll get another Will Cuylle.

Hurray.

 

[jay from jersey]

Maybe.

Should have tried it and found out. Would be less bitching from
Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying Kravtsov is a good fourth liner. Or that it's a good idea to develop your talent habitually on the fourth line just to keep them from getting upset.

I'm saying when you've already lost a top 10 pick and a 24 year old 60 point defenseman for essentially nothing, you take a minute to take stock of your situation and make an exception for once to keep from bleeding another asset. If that means playing him on the fourth line, what the hell ever.

What it really means is playing Blais on the fourth line, which would actually be a good thing, but he's getting to be cult hero status around here and people don't like to hear the suggestion of him being "demoted," even though he'd be kick ass in that role.

I think it was important to Gallant to insert that type of skillset into our top 9. I’m guessing he saw it in camp, as well as all of us seeing it last year.
We really didn’t have any of that blue collar work hard physical presence. It showed big time.
I just don’t see a lot of good options Drury/Gallant could have done to appease kravtsov without sacrificing the success of the team overall.
If they had 1-2 wins right now maybe.
But I think they figured sending krav down was the best for him and the overall team currently. I don’t think they thought he’d blow up publicly. I’m guessing they knew he’d be upset, and might ask for a trade in a few months if there wasn’t any movement.
But Gallant being a 1st year coach isn’t going to walk on egg shells just for Kravs benefit.
He’s going to put the best roster on the ice that gives him a chance to win.
With how everything unfolded in the last year an a half or so it’s hard just pin the blame down on Drury or Bobrov or Gorton or JD or Kravtsov.
I get why krav was mad. And I get why drury/Gallant made the roster decisions the way they did.
Kravy Failing to report and making his trade request public is solely on him though.
If he really wants to play hockey in top 9 nhl capacity, the way he handled himself has made it harder for everyone for him to achieve that goal.

you can’t really lump ADA in with Kravy/lias
In ADAs case, we developed him into a solid player and a premier PPQB.
Well never really know what happened behind the scenes with ADA/Gorton/JD/Quinn but it wasn’t repairable.
There were reports gorts was shopping him prior to the Georgiev incident, but couldn’t find the right deal.
It’s hard to say the rangers should have handled all 3 situations better when it’s a different regime/scout/head coach/GM/ coaching staff

 

[mas0764]

I think it was important to Gallant to insert that type of skillset into our top 9. I’m guessing he saw it in camp, as well as all of us seeing it last year.
We really didn’t have any of that blue collar work hard physical presence. It showed big time.
I just don’t see a lot of good options Drury/Gallant could have done to appease kravtsov without sacrificing the success of the team overall.

They completely overreacted with this grit-toughness thing. That is probably the biggest issue that was correctable on the team's end vis-a-vis the Kravtsov debacle: their insistence that they need to be chock-full of tough guys, which is a style that Kravtsov simply cannot and will not do.

It means once he lost out on 2RW, he was always going to be demanded to conform to playing a grittier role, because their conceptualization of their team meant if he was playing on the third or fourth line, he had to be tougher to play against. That's why he was sent down: Go to Hartford and learn to be tougher, then come back.

But they could have structured the team just fine with him in the lineup. Here it is:

Panarin - Strome - Kakko
Lafreniere - Zibanejad - Kravtsov
Kreider -Chytil - Goodrow
Hunt - Rooney - Blais

X: Reaves/McKegg

Or.... they could have just ran their "third line," as less of a grind line and more of a scoring third line:

Panarin - Strome - Goodrow
Kreider - Zibanejad - Kakko
Lafreniere - Chytil - Kravtsov
Hunt - Rooney - Blais

Goodrow has his lifetime contract and will eat up every last PK minute, so he doesn't need to be stapled to the top 9 either. He and Blais can be interchangeable in that top 9. And, at times, you can send Kravtsov down for fourth line minutes as well - it's not like he didn't do that with Quinn last year. Depth is a good thing: they don't need to read it as Blais or Goodrow being demoted - they were imported here so that we'd finally have a good fourth line for once, since our Cup run. And again - THIS WAS THE PLAN ANYWAY. What were the Rangers gonna do if he accepted the assignment and excelled in Hartford? NOT bring him back and play Blais on the fourth line?

There were solutions to this. The Rangers didn't send him down because he was "beat out," by Hunt, Reaves and McKegg. They sent him down because they were unwilling to have Blais or Goodrow play on the fourth line, unwilling to have Kravtsov play a third line role without being "tougher."

Their obsession with being harder to play against caused this.

I contend that either of the lineups I posited up there are also 5-2-1 if not better, though. I am not gonna sit here and say we are better with McKegg and Reaves, who hasn't fought anyone yet, in the lineup than we would have been with Kravtsov.

So spare me the "he didn't earn it," line.

They were trying to cull him and he rebelled.

Yes, he's to blame. He should have taken the demotion, done what they asked, come back and played more defense-oriented, become a more complete player, and then let his scoring elevate him back into the top 6.

But the Rangers are to blame too. They were too inflexible and it cost them a prime asset that they really couldn't afford to lose without an equal replacement. Just like they were with ADA and Lias.

 

[jay from jersey]

They completely overreacted with this grit-toughness thing. That is probably the biggest issue that was correctable on the team's end vis-a-vis the Kravtsov debacle: their insistence that they need to be chock-full of tough guys, which is a style that Kravtsov simply cannot and will not do.

It means once he lost out on 2RW, he was always going to be demanded to conform to playing a grittier role, because their conceptualization of their team meant if he was playing on the third or fourth line, he had to be tougher to play against. That's why he was sent down: Go to Hartford and learn to be tougher, then come back.

But they could have structured the team just fine with him in the lineup. Here it is:

Panarin - Strome - Kakko
Lafreniere - Zibanejad - Kravtsov
Kreider -Chytil - Goodrow
Hunt - Rooney - Blais

X: Reaves/McKegg

Or.... they could have just ran their "third line," as less of a grind line and more of a scoring third line:

Panarin - Strome - Goodrow
Kreider - Zibanejad - Kakko
Lafreniere - Chytil - Kravtsov
Hunt - Rooney - Blais

Goodrow has his lifetime contract and will eat up every last PK minute, so he doesn't need to be stapled to the top 9 either. He and Blais can be interchangeable in that top 9. And, at times, you can send Kravtsov down for fourth line minutes as well - it's not like he didn't do that with Quinn last year.

There were solutions to this. The Rangers didn't send him down because he was "beat out," by Hunt, Reaves and McKegg. They sent him down because they were unwilling to have Blais or Goodrow play on the fourth line, unwilling to have Kravtsov play a third line role without being "tougher."

Their obsession with being harder to play against caused this.

I contend that either of the lineups I posited up there are also 5-2-1 if not better, though. I am not gonna sit here and say we are better with McKegg and Reaves, who hasn't fought anyone yet, in the lineup than we would have been with Kravtsov.

So spare me the "he didn't earn it," line.

They were trying to cull him and he rebelled.

Yes, he's to blame.

So are the Rangers.

he did absolutely nothing for them to warrant that kind of treatment though. The disagreement over training in summer, everything that transpired with him leaving the first time, etc fast fwd to camp. New coach fresh slate....
He was decent, also sustained an injury. But he absolutely didn’t warrant some red carpet type of treatment to guarantee him top 6 minutes with Zibby. If he was lights out in preseason maybe...
Me and you just disagree on the toughness aspect, and that’s ok.
Nyr are a target. Always. Bad teams play us like it’s their Stanley cup and our division rivals love beating on us physically.
I think it was important to not only insert tough guys that can play, but proven character guys.
Very important for the vets down to kakko/LaF.
I still think kravtsov s biggest problem was he thought he was a top 9 lock once Buch was traded.
When he found out he wasn’t getting that spot and had to outwork someone for it, he flew off the handle.
But like I said, the way this team is currently constructed and having a 1st year coach/GM, there really wasn’t a ton of good outcomes when dealing with the kravy decision

 

[mas0764]

he did absolutely nothing for them to warrant that kind of treatment though.

His upside warrants that treatment. His upside warrants the treatment that you can develop him as you see fit UNTIL you get to the point that he will pout and run away - yes, all his fault - but at that point you've gotta react in a way that makes an exception and doesn't lose him, at least not before you can trade him at high value.

And again, I don't agree that he did "nothing," to warrant that treatment. That's revisionist.

He didn't have a terrible camp, he just had a lukewarm one and was injured. He still had a hell of a game in the preseason against the Islanders. The guy is still one of our best 6-7 forwards. Playing him up one line while he sorts out is some unforgivable sin? Again, if he had done everything asked of him, the plan is to play Blais or Goodrow on the fourth line anyway. You aren't demoting some undemoteable player for Kravtsov. Either Blais or Goodrow are here BY DESIGN to be a fourth liner.

We couldn't just do that early?

Come on.

 

[jay from jersey]

Blais or Goodrow on the fourth line anyway. You aren't demoting some undemoteable player for Kravtsov. Either Blais or Goodrow are here BY DESIGN to be a fourth liner.

I don’t think that’s the way they saw it.
Goodrow was never going to play 4th line here. He was a mainstay in the middle 6 for Tampa’s cup teams.
Blais was the Gamble. I’m guessing when they were scouting him, they all saw the talent going back to juniors. He really didn’t add that physical hard hitting aspect until later when he grew.
He was drafted in talent.
Injuries are his big question mark. I don’t think the blues would have kept him as a 4th line guy there either tbh
My guess is they figured it be a horse race to see who had the better camp.
I don’t think there was ever any intention of him beating a Hunt/Rooney/Reaves out
It was always top 9 or AHL.
I’m on record as saying before all this happened, I bet kravy would ask for a trade if he doesn’t make the team.
I was just shocked he did it without reporting to the A at least until thanksgiving/Christmas.
Doing that and going public just made such a mess of things for everyone.

I’m just of the group that thinks whatever talent he has/might become, isn’t worth all of the character flaws and unwillingness not to work thru adversity he’s shown since thinking he was too good for the AHL the first time.

 

[Lays]

 

[smoneil]

Then coddle him a little bit longer while you quietly seek a trade.

There has to be a line, somewhere. You can't just keep giving to a player who shows no sign of following up. It's like letting a kid get away with things because they are funny or smart. Eventually, those kids turn into little monsters who have no idea how consequences work. They coddled him. Repeatedly. It didn't work, so time for something new. When neither coddling nor tough love work with Kravtsov, whose fault will it be when he goes full Pavel Brendl?

Well when it moved Kreider to RW it kinda ended the chance for Kravtsov to earn one of those top 6 spots.

A ten year NHL veteran with nearly 600 games and nearly 200 goals is suddenly moved to RW. That didn't strike you as odd? It seems more likely to me that that move was precipitated by the fact that it was clear to brass from the start of camp that Kravtsov didn't show up ready to play.

And then it came down to Kravtsov beating out Blais for a grit role in the top 9 or on the fourth line.

I trimmed the material about toughness, Hunt, and Reeves because Hunt and Reeves were never competing for the same roster spots as Kravtsov. This has been covered over and over again.


The top 9 WINGERS, or top 9 forwards?

Taking centers out of it cause he hasn't been played at center, I don't think it's in dispute he's not as good as Panarin, Lafreniere, Kakko and Kreider right now.

Blais stayed healthy and clearly had an edge. Goodrow was specifically imported for a special function and was always making the team as well.

There should have been room for him over Reaves, Hunt, or McKegg. They chose to keep those guys for toughness by playing Blais and Goodrow up instead.

This doesn't excuse Kravtsov for misbehaving. I'm saying there are things the Rangers could have done differently knowing they have a spoiled brat on their hands.

I meant top 9 wingers (so six guys), though the three centers in the top lines also played better than Krav. I am, however, interested in the fact that you don't think Krav should be compared to centers (because Krav doesn't play center) but the Krav defense crowd hasn't been able to shut up about Reeves, Hunt, Hajek, etc (even though Krav doesn't play fourth line or defense). Interesting. Also, McKegg was sent down after camp, so I don't know why you brought him up here.

You followed up your question by then looking at those top 9 wingers. Let's look at them, shall we? Preseason stats:

Bread: 2GP, 2G, 2A, 4 Points
Kreider: 3GP, G, A, 0 Points
Kakko: 4GP, 2G, 3A, 5 Points
Laf: 4GP, 1G, 3A, 4 Points
Blais: 5GP, 2G, 1A, 3 Points
Goodrow: 4GP, 1G, 1A, 2 Points

Kravtsov: 2.5GP, 1G, A, 1 Point
Reeves: 3GP, G, A, 0 Points
Hunt: 4GP, G, 2A, 2 Points
Gauthier: 5GP, G, A, 0 Points

Of the six wingers who landed starting spots on the top three lines, Kravtsov only out-scored one of them (Kreider), and Kreider, as I mentioned before, has the track record to not lose his job in training camp because of three games--Krav has no such track record.

The other five guys out-scored Krav by a wide margin. Bread was 2ppg. Kakko and Laf were ~ppg. That leaves Blais and Goodrow--the latter has a recent history as one of the best third liners in the league (and still outscored Krav). The former has a Stanley Cup ring, tripled Krav's production, and hits like a truck. If you're an NHL coach building a 3rd line, be honest--who would you pick out of that group? The one thing Krav is supposed to do better than those guys is score, and both of them, AND one of the wingers on the fourth line in Hunt, scored more than Kravtsov.

They chose poorly. It is on them. Protecting their asset and developing Kravtsov in whatever role they can find for him is more important than keeping Hunt around or "not setting precedent," - as "not setting precedent," doesn't work for them, it clearly doesn't discourage bad behavior, and keeps resulting in loss of value without equal compensation coming back.

They didn't choose poorly at all. Krav got beat clean by six guys for those six spots. An argument could be made that he was only the 8th or 9th best winger in camp. When a 21 year old kid isn't ready, he goes to the AHL to get games. Sitting on his ass in the press box isn't going to help him get better. Kravtsov is just too privileged and too stupid to realize that.

By your logic, Chytil should have gone home years ago pouting and demanding a trade years ago. They've left him blocked behind two centers. They didn't move out the more accomplished veterans blocking his way to the top six (like they did for Krav). They didn't keep him with the team when he had a crap camp a couple years ago. And Chytil has accomplished far more than Krav in both the NHL and the AHL. During Krav's 4 points in 20 games stretch, Chytil put up 11 points, with the same crap usage. And they're pretty much the exact same age (Chytil is older by just a couple of months).

 

[Rongomania]

Actual bullshit that Fox/Lindgren aren't on that.

 

[mas0764]

I don’t think that’s the way they saw it.

If Kravtsov had "earned," a spot, it's a mathematical necessity that either Blais or Goodrow is a fourth liner.

Panarin
Laf
Kreider
Kakko
Kravtsov
Goodrow
Blais

That's 7.

There are only 6 wing spots in the top 9.

One of them is a fourth liner.

Again, that was their PLAN, by numbers.

Though I'm not officially ruling out that Drury has never liked Kravtsov and never had any intention of letting him have a top 6 role, but that's real conspiracy theory shit that I don't expect anyone to take seriously.

Goodrow was never going to play 4th line here. He was a mainstay in the middle 6 for Tampa’s cup teams.
Blais was the Gamble. I’m guessing when they were scouting him, they all saw the talent going back to juniors. He really didn’t add that physical hard hitting aspect until later when he grew.
He was drafted in talent.
Injuries are his big question mark. I don’t think the blues would have kept him as a 4th line guy there either tbh
My guess is they figured it be a horse race to see who had the better camp.
I don’t think there was ever any intention of him beating a Hunt/Rooney/Reaves out
It was always top 9 or AHL.

Well that doesn't conform with what they told him - go down to Hartford, get in better shape, and come back up (to presumably a top 9 role).

So were they lying to him?

 

[mas0764]

There has to be a line, somewhere. You can't just keep giving to a player who shows no sign of following up. It's like letting a kid get away with things because they are funny or smart. Eventually, those kids turn into little monsters who have no idea how consequences work. They coddled him. Repeatedly. It didn't work, so time for something new. When neither coddling nor tough love work with Kravtsov, whose fault will it be when he goes full Pavel Brendl?

He hadn't gone full Pavel Brendl yet though. He was fresh off a nice game against the Islanders at least.

Again, what is wrong with letting him play on the big club? If he goes full Pavel Brendl then demote him and lose him. You at least gave him a last shot.

You wouldn't have lost a single player worth saving. McKegg would be in the AHL still. Reaves and Hunt around but scratched.

There does have to be a line somewhere, but that line was not even close to being reached yet.

There were solutions here that do not upset the apple cart. All this gnashing of teeth over having to play Blais or Goodrow on the fourth line, as if that wasn't the plan all along anyway. If Kravtsov has a good camp, again, by necessity one of Blais or Goodrow is a fourth liner.

A ten year NHL veteran with nearly 600 games and nearly 200 goals is suddenly moved to RW. That didn't strike you as odd? It seems more likely to me that that move was precipitated by the fact that it was clear to brass from the start of camp that Kravtsov didn't show up ready to play.

It did strike me as odd. And I remain against it.

Yeah, I get that this is on Kravtsov as well.

I'm saying the team should have done something to keep from losing him outright, even if it meant bending traditional principles.

I meant top 9 wingers (so six guys), though the three centers in the top lines also played better than Krav. I am, however, interested in the fact that you don't think Krav should be compared to centers (because Krav doesn't play center) but the Krav defense crowd hasn't been able to shut up about Reeves, Hunt, Hajek, etc (even though Krav doesn't play fourth line or defense). Interesting. Also, McKegg was sent down after camp, so I don't know why you brought him up here.

Well, McKegg is on the roster now, isn't he?

The point in comparing him to those guys is that they are no great loss. They likely do not get claimed and if they are they are not hard to replace. Blais or Goodrow could have played fourth line minutes as I explained in above posts.

You followed up your question by then looking at those top 9 wingers. Let's look at them, shall we? Preseason stats:

Bread: 2GP, 2G, 2A, 4 Points
Kreider: 3GP, G, A, 0 Points
Kakko: 4GP, 2G, 3A, 5 Points
Laf: 4GP, 1G, 3A, 4 Points
Blais: 5GP, 2G, 1A, 3 Points
Goodrow: 4GP, 1G, 1A, 2 Points

Kravtsov: 2.5GP, 1G, A, 1 Point
Reeves: 3GP, G, A, 0 Points
Hunt: 4GP, G, 2A, 2 Points
Gauthier: 5GP, G, A, 0 Points

Of the six wingers who landed starting spots on the top three lines, Kravtsov only out-scored one of them (Kreider), and Kreider, as I mentioned before, has the track record to not lose his job in training camp because of three games--Krav has no such track record.

Well, Krav was injured so comparing raw stats is not really applicable, but granted that my argument is not that Kravtsov outperformed guys like Blais or Goodrow; rather, that he's worth keeping over guys like Reaves or Hunt, even if you have to "play him out of position," on the fourth line as he did with Quinn last year, but more likely, even if you have to give him "undeserved," third line minutes by playing Blais where you acquired him to play all along on the fourth line.

The other five guys out-scored Krav by a wide margin. Bread was 2ppg. Kakko and Laf were ~ppg. That leaves Blais and Goodrow--the latter has a recent history as one of the best third liners in the league (and still outscored Krav). The former has a Stanley Cup ring, tripled Krav's production, and hits like a truck. If you're an NHL coach building a 3rd line, be honest--who would you pick out of that group? The one thing Krav is supposed to do better than those guys is score, and both of them, AND one of the wingers on the fourth line in Hunt, scored more than Kravtsov.

I would play Blais or Goodrow on the fourth line. Why is this so controversial? Again, it was the plan anyway if Krav had a good camp.

And I'm maintaining that with, for example, Blais on the fourth line and Krav on the third line, we are probably at least no worse than with Reaves on the fourth line and Blais on the third line. And obviously in much better shape long term. Blais would be a dominant fourth liner.

They didn't choose poorly at all. Krav got beat clean by six guys for those six spots. An argument could be made that he was only the 8th or 9th best winger in camp.

I don't buy that argument.

When a 21 year old kid isn't ready, he goes to the AHL to get games. Sitting on his ass in the press box isn't going to help him get better. Kravtsov is just too privileged and too stupid to realize that.

Yes, that's what normally happens. It's what Kravtsov should have done.

When he signalled he was going to be a baby and pout and not do it, the Rangers should have bent the rules. And I think have been better for it anyway.

By your logic, Chytil should have gone home years ago pouting and demanding a trade years ago. They've left him blocked behind two centers.

No, you are misinterpreting me.

Chytil did it right. Krav did it wrong.

But better to bend the rules than lose Krav.

No, this will not lead to an influx of players all pouting. They are not all babies like Krav.

And if it did, against the odds, become an issue, take a hard line at that time. Nothing says you can't change your approach later.

 

[smoneil]

You cannot stand on principal and lose the asset. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. You don't gain anything.

Bud, you need to realize that if you have to cave to a contracted player because you are THAT afraid that he's going to violate his contract, take his puck, and go home, then you don't really have an "asset" in the first place. Anyone volatile enough to clearly lose a battle for a roster spot and go home in a snit is never going to be a good player.

 

[mas0764]

Bud, you need to realize that if you have to cave to a contracted player because you are THAT afraid that he's going to violate his contract, take his puck, and go home, then you don't really have an "asset" in the first place. Anyone volatile enough to clearly lose a battle for a roster spot and go home in a snit is never going to be a good player.

I don't agree in the slightest.

You think there have never been any spoiled, whiny players who have gone on to be stars?

I also disagree that giving in to a brat means that all the children are going to become monsters. The rest of these guys are still professionals, you just can’t have an entire room of Kravtsovs.

 

[smoneil]

But better to bend the rules than lose Krav.

No, this will not lead to an influx of players all pouting. They are not all babies like Krav.

And if it did, against the odds, become an issue, take a hard line at that time. Nothing says you can't change your approach later.

Bud, never, ever take a job where you are in charge of people. If you honestly don't think that openly caving to the whiny rich kid who demands something without having earned it won't make you enemy #1 in that room, then I just don't know what to tell you. Anyone in a leadership position that screws over someone who earned something to hand that prize over to a brat is not worthy of respect. The vast majority of grown ups understand that.

 

[smoneil]

I don't agree in the slightest.

You think there have never been any spoiled, whiny players who have gone on to be stars?

Not without waking up and putting in the work. Kravtsov seems unwilling to do that. How's Josh Ho-Sang doing these days?

 

[mas0764]

Bud, never, ever take a job where you are in charge of people. If you honestly don't think that openly caving to the whiny rich kid who demands something without having earned it won't make you enemy #1 in that room, then I just don't know what to tell you. Anyone in a leadership position that screws over someone who earned something to hand that prize over to a brat is not worthy of respect. The vast majority of grown ups understand that.

I already have a job where I’m in charge of people.

I find what the vast majority of grown ups usually understand is that their approach isn’t the only valid one, and that individuals all need to be handled differently.

 

[smoneil]

I already have a job where I’m in charge of people.

For the sake of your people, I hope you don't run it the way you want the Rangers to run the roster. What you are calling for is the equivalent of me giving a student chance after chance, extension after extension, only for that student to throw it back in my face. And by your logic, you would have me give that student a B, even though they didn't come close to a passing grade, because that student really wants to be in the Honors college and might quit school if he doesn't get it. Sure, doing that would put this student (Kravtsov) in the honors college over a kid with less natural ability who busted their ass to be where they are and actually earned their grade (Blais), but what the hell, we can screw him over. He's probably poor or something, amiright? All that matters is where they went to high school (ie: draft position from four years ago).

 

[mas0764]

Please don’t presume to have a clue about how effective I am at my job.

 

[mas0764]

And again, I don’t know why this would be so offensive to Blais. If he’s gonna be upset at playing fourth line minutes then maybe HE is not a team player either. He can’t comprehend the argument that we might be better off with Kravtsov getting minutes than Reaves or Hunt? Blais would have to be a fourth liner, but he’d dominate there. He’s unwilling to do that? Is that what I’m hearing? He’s not getting “screwed over,” - he gets paid the same, he is excelling in the role we brought him here to play. It’s not like we are pushing Lafreniere to the side to play Kravtsov.

This is an NHL team, all these analogies to regular workplaces or students are not applicable at all. It’s literally nothing like you giving grades to students. The Rangers have to worry about things schools do not.

 

[jay from jersey]

They completely overreacted with this grit-toughness thing. That is probably the biggest issue that was correctable on the team's end vis-a-vis the Kravtsov debacle: their insistence that they need to be chock-full of tough guys, which is a style that Kravtsov simply cannot and will not do.

It means once he lost out on 2RW, he was always going to be demanded to conform to playing a grittier role, because their conceptualization of their team meant if he was playing on the third or fourth line, he had to be tougher to play against. That's why he was sent down: Go to Hartford and learn to be tougher, then come back.

But they could have structured the team just fine with him in the lineup. Here it is:

Panarin - Strome - Kakko
Lafreniere - Zibanejad - Kravtsov
Kreider -Chytil - Goodrow
Hunt - Rooney - Blais

X: Reaves/McKegg

Or.... they could have just ran their "third line," as less of a grind line and more of a scoring third line:

Panarin - Strome - Goodrow
Kreider - Zibanejad - Kakko
Lafreniere - Chytil - Kravtsov
Hunt - Rooney - Blais

Goodrow has his lifetime contract and will eat up every last PK minute, so he doesn't need to be stapled to the top 9 either. He and Blais can be interchangeable in that top 9. And, at times, you can send Kravtsov down for fourth line minutes as well - it's not like he didn't do that with Quinn last year. Depth is a good thing: they don't need to read it as Blais or Goodrow being demoted - they were imported here so that we'd finally have a good fourth line for once, since our Cup run. And again - THIS WAS THE PLAN ANYWAY. What were the Rangers gonna do if he accepted the assignment and excelled in Hartford? NOT bring him back and play Blais on the fourth line?

There were solutions to this. The Rangers didn't send him down because he was "beat out," by Hunt, Reaves and McKegg. They sent him down because they were unwilling to have Blais or Goodrow play on the fourth line, unwilling to have Kravtsov play a third line role without being "tougher."

Their obsession with being harder to play against caused this.

I contend that either of the lineups I posited up there are also 5-2-1 if not better, though. I am not gonna sit here and say we are better with McKegg and Reaves, who hasn't fought anyone yet, in the lineup than we would have been with Kravtsov.

So spare me the "he didn't earn it," line.

They were trying to cull him and he rebelled.

Yes, he's to blame. He should have taken the demotion, done what they asked, come back and played more defense-oriented, become a more complete player, and then let his scoring elevate him back into the top 6.

But the Rangers are to blame too. They were too inflexible and it cost them a prime asset that they really couldn't afford to lose without an equal replacement. Just like they were with ADA and Lias.

Once again, comparing AdA situation and this isn’t really applicable.
I’m honestly shocked you think they should have made all these concessions to appease kravtsov. You seem like a pretty level headed guy.
This is twice now with 2 different coaches run by 2 different GMs, when krav gets a dose of adversity, he chooses to pack up and leave rather then work harder.
No one is saying he has a terrible preseason.
But the lack of growth he showed from his 4 pts in 20 games on 4th line with Quinn to his so/so preseason plus his injury Doesn’t warrant the rangers to go out of there way to appease him like that.
He’s not a can’t miss superstar, and he’s shown a whole lot of flaws on and off the ice since being drafted.
Can he still be a good nhl player? Sure, if he works hard enough and gets an opportunity.
But he’s got to take charge and seize it. Not have a problem at every bump in the road.
By handling this the way he did, he helped no one to facilitate his dream. He made himself look bad and lowered his trade value in the process.
He also still thinks he’s too good for the AHL like he did on his draft year, despite the damage control statements his agent is feeding him.
He understands now, likely the only way a team will trade for him is if they can see how he performs in the A for a short time.
There’s not a lot of teams beating down Drurys door ready to have him walk in and get top 9 min that he hasn’t earned. He’d have been dealt by now.

 

[mas0764]

All what concessions? We were down to playing Ryan Reaves and Greg McKegg every night. What concessions!?? We are not overflowing with talent. Why is it such a problem that Blais would have to play on the fourth line WHERE HE WAS PLANNED TO PLAY WHEN THEY TRADED FOR HIM???

That’s the point here, we are not as talented as people think. That’s why I’m willing to make “concessions.”

Kravtsov is needed here long term. We can’t afford to lose him.

 

[jay from jersey]

All what concessions? We were down to playing Ryan Reaves and Greg McKegg every night. What concessions!?? We are not overflowing with talent. Why is it such a problem that Blais would have to play on the fourth line WHERE HE WAS PLANNED TO PLAY WHEN THEY TRADED FOR HIM???

That’s the point here, we are not as talented as people think. That’s why I’m willing to make “concessions.”

Kravtsov is needed here long term. We can’t afford to lose him.

You just said, you wanted to drop Kreids to 3rd line role to give kravy top 6 min.
Or drop Blais/Goodrow, 2 cup winners both having better camps then kravy to 4th line to accommodate him getting top line minutes.
He has done nothing to warrant that at all. If he beat out Blais and Gauthier handily which he should have done... maybe he winds up with a top 9 spot.
The point is kravy isn’t as talented as you believe. If he was, we’d have likely seen a jump in is progression at some point. Besides his PP goal he did nothing that stuck out at all.
This kid is the most average overhyped 9Oa pick I’ve ever seen with terrible mental fortitude.
Some fans think he’s the next kovalev for god sakes.

 

[mas0764]

I said I would play Kreider on a Chytil/Goodrow line because I like the make up of that line, and allows Krav to play a skill role next to Panarin or Zibanejad, not cause I consider it a demotion for Kreider. I said I would give the third line plenty of minutes and Kreider would still get all PP time. But I could also live with a scenario with Krav on a third line.

Yes Blais would play fourth line but I’m saying I don’t understand why that’s a concession, or at least much of one. Blais was brought here to be a fourth liner.

Is the concept that foreign to people that maybe just throwing the “best playing,” players onto lines together doesn’t always work? Sometimes it’s more effective to tailor the lines to specialties and maybe it shouldn’t be seen as a demotion to tell Blais we want him dominating the fourth line. It’s not about “who played better,” - we want to deploy Blais as a super fourth liner. Why is this such an infeasible concept?

Like, yes Blais, you played better than Kravtsov but Kravtsov is better than Reaves and we can’t play Kravtsov on the fourth line. Since you can, go dominate there and let Kravtsov play up in a scoring role, the team is better with a Blais/Kravtsov combination than a Blais/Reaves combination. This is damaging to the team why?

 

[Lays]

If Brandon Hagel ever becomes available from Chicago I would pay through the roof for him. Would legit go as far as 1st+Lundkvist