Roster Building Thread VI (2022-23): Offseason edition

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

I've been saying this for months. And while I never played hockey myself, I did play rugby at a very high level and I can recognise when a team is not good enough vs when a team is simply not tactically ready for a game. The latter was always the case under Gallant, and that same problem was visible in Vegas, Florida and as far back as his time in Columbus.

Gallant is a great coach to finish the season as an interim if you fire your head coach in December. Other than that, he doesn't have the tactical acumen to really perform at this level.

All these comments now coming out are not a surprise at all. The best players in the world still need a gameplan when they go out there and play. They still need set plays. Look at the Reinhart goal vs the Leafs in the play-offs where he got the puck back from Lundell and scored with a wrap around. TYPICAL set play.

The Rangers just did not have it.

What made it even more obvious (to me at least), is Panarin falling back on his set plays from his Chicago and Columbus days. We blame Panarin for the drop-passes leading to a turnover, but how much of that is because the other player is not in the right spot to receive that drop-pass? THAT is tactical. That is not individual.

The Rangers tactics were as soon as they have the puck in their own zone every forward breaks for the other zone lol

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

The Rangers tactics were as soon as they have the puck in their own zone every forward breaks for the other zone lol

The hockey equivalent of Four Verts

 

[Boris Zubov]

I've been saying this for months. And while I never played hockey myself, I did play rugby at a very high level and I can recognise when a team is not good enough vs when a team is simply not tactically ready for a game. The latter was always the case under Gallant, and that same problem was visible in Vegas, Florida and as far back as his time in Columbus.

Gallant is a great coach to finish the season as an interim if you fire your head coach in December. Other than that, he doesn't have the tactical acumen to really perform at this level.

All these comments now coming out are not a surprise at all. The best players in the world still need a gameplan when they go out there and play. They still need set plays. Look at the Reinhart goal vs the Leafs in the play-offs where he got the puck back from Lundell and scored with a wrap around. TYPICAL set play.

The Rangers just did not have it.

What made it even more obvious (to me at least), is Panarin falling back on his set plays from his Chicago and Columbus days. We blame Panarin for the drop-passes leading to a turnover, but how much of that is because the other player is not in the right spot to receive that drop-pass? THAT is tactical. That is not individual.

Blaming Gallant for Panarin's turnover problem is a bridge too far. Gallant was a bad tactician & Panarin is a selfish turnover machine. Both things can be true & mutually exclusive.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Blaming Gallant for Panarin's turnover problem is a bridge too far. Gallant was a bad tactician & Panarin is a selfish turnover machine. Both things can be true & mutually exclusive.

I am not absolving Panarin of all the blame. I'm simply explaining that those plays were part of his arsenal in Chicago and Columbus, and it worked because players were taught to expect them. Yeah, it's still Panarin turning over the puck but the absence of a gameplan, even a simple one, is also a factor here.

 

[LaffyTaffy13]

Who said he wasnt a top 10 winger? Are all the top 10 wingers paid 11.5 mil? Hahahaha.
If you think he's performing to his contract, 2nd bst in the NHL after McJesus, then it is YOU who has gone full on nuts. NOT EVEN CLOSE. He's been a bad value for years now. Will that continue? I sure HOPE not, but it is what it is.


Yes. He was brilliant early on in the contract. He is NOT worth it now. At 11.5 million every year, yes I expect the player to be in the Hart conversation every year. Or close to it. He hasn't been close.

So what should panarin be paid?

 

[Machinehead]

I've been saying this for months. And while I never played hockey myself, I did play rugby at a very high level and I can recognise when a team is not good enough vs when a team is simply not tactically ready for a game. The latter was always the case under Gallant, and that same problem was visible in Vegas, Florida and as far back as his time in Columbus.

Gallant is a great coach to finish the season as an interim if you fire your head coach in December. Other than that, he doesn't have the tactical acumen to really perform at this level.

All these comments now coming out are not a surprise at all. The best players in the world still need a gameplan when they go out there and play. They still need set plays. Look at the Reinhart goal vs the Leafs in the play-offs where he got the puck back from Lundell and scored with a wrap around. TYPICAL set play.

The Rangers just did not have it.

What made it even more obvious (to me at least), is Panarin falling back on his set plays from his Chicago and Columbus days. We blame Panarin for the drop-passes leading to a turnover, but how much of that is because the other player is not in the right spot to receive that drop-pass? THAT is tactical. That is not individual.

I solve Rubik's cubes at a fairly high level.

I have nothing to add about NHL coaching based on that; it's just an interesting fact about me.

 

[RangersFan1994]

Any chance Rangers invite some UFA like Cal Foote to camp, he’d be interesting pick up.

 

[Fitzy]

So what should panarin be paid?

Based on his last two seasons I’d say he’s operating at a 9.5-10 million dollar level for a UFA

 

[haohmaru]

where have I heard that before?

8 1st rounders in 5 years, a 1OA, a 2OA, a 7OA. Year 6 into that and we're nowhere.

You guys are geniuses.

 

[mas0764]

8 1st rounders in 5 years, a 1OA, a 2OA, a 7OA. Year 6 into that and we're nowhere.

You guys are geniuses.

When you trade away half of them or they bust then you need more.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

When you trade away half of them or they bust then you need more.

The organization needs to seriously audit its development department, its failing massively. We've shot wide on too many " surefire, nhl ready prospects" its not too late for Kakko, Laf and Chytil, but the organization needs to figure it out now

 

[haohmaru]

When you trade away half of them or they bust then you need more.

Oh, this is crap. They traded away the guys that didn't pan out - and they didn't end up panning out where they went either.

Doing more of the same doesn't seem like a winning formula given this, now pretty lengthy, track record.

If I told you, in a vacuum, in 2017 that we'd have 8 1st round picks in 5 years, 1OA, 2OA, 7OA, 9OA 16OA, 19OA, 22OA, 28OA, a Vezina winner that's not one of those picks, a Norris trophy winner and finalist that wasn't one of those picks, the LW that's scored the most points in the NHL since being a Ranger that's not one of those picks, and a top 10ish center you'd have been over the moon and talking about guaranteed Cups.

The above is YOUR formula - tons of picks, picking up great players with later picks and trades, and probably the best UFA signing in Rangers history.

I'm not even saying that's it's the wrong track. I'm saying it guarantees absolutely nothing. There's no "one way' to build a Stanley Cup winner.

Vegas has, I think, zero of their first round picks playing on their Stanley Cup winning roster.

 

[nsvoyageurs]

The organization needs to seriously audit its development department, its failing massively. We've shot wide on too many " surefire, nhl ready prospects" its not too late for Kakko, Laf and Chytil, but the organization needs to figure it out now

I cannot not agree with this post enough. Unfortunately, the Rangers front office lives in their own world, so I doubt they think anything is wrong; "It's the players fault!". "We know everything; just ask us!"

They need to reevaluate how they assess/develop talent, but I don't think they have the mindset to go through an audit to figure out where they're going wrong. I do agree the players need to take some of the blame for their lack of development (or at least slow development), but a lot of it is on how this organization judges talent and what they prioritize in players. Prioritizing the wrong things, maybe not prioritizing/overlooking the right things.

They either have too much skill/not enough grit or too much grit/not enough skill. There's no perfect formula to win a Stanley Cup, but their plan hasn't been working (it's only worked once in 84 years). There needs to be a balance with skill/grit. They have the goaltender. They need a system that brings out the best in the talent they have.

 

[nsvoyageurs]

And if you wait til the last minute, you limit the # of suitors who can handle him at double digit salary
better to deal a year early and get better return than benefit from his production but a more flawed team

If they do deal him (I honestly doubt they would), the time they would move him would be the offseason. To trade him during a season during a playoff push, which this team may be in, would be awkward/tricky, etc. I agree they should maximize his value if they can't re-sign him. To get the best return, it's best to move him a year/1.5 years before he hits UFA than at the trade deadline of his UFA season.

 

[mike14]

This is sort of OT, but do we all basically work off the same definition when talking about Rangers player development? Is there a widely accepted definition about who counts for development purposes?
Examples:
- Fox and Stepan played college (one while in the Rangers system, one outside) and then were straight into the Rangers on a full-time basis. Were they developed by the Rangers (especially in Stepan's case) or by college?
- Kreider also played college, but then spent some time with the Pack over 2 seasons. College or Rangers (or both)?
- Miller (J.T) went CHL and then Rangers/Pack so I assume he counts as Rangers developed?

 

[huerter]

Kreider
Zibanejad - Volpe - Panarin
Fox

 

[RGY]

Watching Rangers/Devils Game 2 on MSG. Patrick Kane was skating very well and was making plays. I understand the procedure that he had, but if he can rehab to be even just 10% above where he was in that game then he can be an impactful player.

 

[effen]

This is sort of OT, but do we all basically work off the same definition when talking about Rangers player development? Is there a widely accepted definition about who counts for development purposes?
Examples:
- Fox and Stepan played college (one while in the Rangers system, one outside) and then were straight into the Rangers on a full-time basis. Were they developed by the Rangers (especially in Stepan's case) or by college?
- Kreider also played college, but then spent some time with the Pack over 2 seasons. College or Rangers (or both)?
- Miller (J.T) went CHL and then Rangers/Pack so I assume he counts as Rangers developed?

Kreider went from chicken without a head to best net front presence in the league as a professional. Mika went from not being able to cleanly handle a pass for a solid year to a middle tier 1C.

Works for some guys, doesn't for others. Rangers have probably been somewhat to fairly unlucky with their picks not panning out. It's mostly lotto. The One True God himself, the TB player development guy, just got allowed to walk for free. It's random.

Don't listen to narratives that don't make sense.

 

[bhamill]

So what should panarin be paid?

LESS.

 

[Kakko]

Few pages late on this, but I haven't been happy with Panarin's playoff performances. On the plus side, he seems to feel the same.

That said, Gaborik, Zucc, Nash, our GM, and every other good forward in recent years has sucked too. Maybe, just maybe, they were all mediocre teams carried by consecutive generational goalies and timely goals.

 

[bernmeister]

You try to extend him as early as you can and see what his number is. If it’s not a fit you deal him. Letting him walk would not be great.

I trust we are all in agreement, walk is not an option.

It is a math problem.
result of paying him at a certain increased number, w/solid production reaped [assumed]
vs
result of selling him later which stupidly gives production for win now but incontrovertibly reduces his term on an very attractive current salary
vs
result of selling now, which means stopgap if nec and Garand asap, but reap the largest possible return b'c suitor gets max term at cheapest price

The only variable in this * is how much a suitor will offer, which is based on need and its own options.

Can we add to Shesty [and if so, what currency/too much or acceptably high] and walk away with Sanderson from Sens?

Can we extract Byfield + Clarke + 1st for Shesty at half [given how deep they are at pivot]?
Maybe we add a younger Panarin full pop and an older Doughty (an extra yr) reduced to 8.5?

Love Shesty, but failure of not listening to bern earlier means ny must consider selling some of its jewels IF we get high quality youth, pref foundation pieces in return -- which means deal now, not later

 

[bernmeister]

LESS.

salary is a factor, but more critical are the effin nmcs
should not exist
extensive ntcs for those deserving
regular/less ntcs for everybody else

8 1st rounders in 5 years, a 1OA, a 2OA, a 7OA. Year 6 into that and we're nowhere.

You guys are geniuses.

I'll take my track record vs R braintrust

 

[SA16]

This is sort of OT, but do we all basically work off the same definition when talking about Rangers player development? Is there a widely accepted definition about who counts for development purposes?
Examples:
- Fox and Stepan played college (one while in the Rangers system, one outside) and then were straight into the Rangers on a full-time basis. Were they developed by the Rangers (especially in Stepan's case) or by college?
- Kreider also played college, but then spent some time with the Pack over 2 seasons. College or Rangers (or both)?
- Miller (J.T) went CHL and then Rangers/Pack so I assume he counts as Rangers developed?

Whoever fits the narrative at the time counts whoever doesn’t doesn’t

 

[haohmaru]

I'll take my track record vs R braintrust

You don't have a track record.

 

[bernmeister]

You don't have a track record.

If we go back on what I said, one can be created.
I'm very busy now, don't tempt me.
B'c you all know me, and how I roll, and I have my flaws, but I am honest.
If I have to make the time to establish in writing what you would all remember as to my word, when it is proven correct, I will not hesitate to throw it in your face.

Generally speaking: no to win now stupidity, dealing youth for vet especially as rentals
That in and of itself is enuf

And oh yeah, I do it in real time, as it develops or right before, not 111% always after the fact.