Player Discussion Ryan Lindgren

[Machinehead]

Gus was absolutely horrible outside the 3 weeks fox was hurt.

Lindgren was consistently worse.

 

[Profet]

I'm not a numbers guy... but the eye test last year was easy to see that every NHL team knew to just leave Lindgren open in the offensive zone.

Puck goes back to Fox, he gets double teamed and STILL is able to get the puck through two players to Lindgren on the opposite point. Setting him up for a perfect screened shot and... muffin...

This happened at least 3 times a game. (I have no facts to prove this)

 

[ICanMotteBelieveIt]

Should've been max $3.5M aav after the season he had.

Doesn't this take him to UFA? We should move on from him unless he plays real good this upcoming season.

His next contract is gonna age badly, so I hope we re-sign him for cheap or trade him/let him go.

Its a one year deal. There are no FA’s to sign.

Literally its a great deal. If he stinks we walk away. If for some reason we implode this year we trade him ar deadline.

This is a no risk deal.

A great deal would've been one year @ $3-3.5M AAV.

This is 1-1,5M too much for him.

 

[McRanger]

Lindgren was consistently worse.

By like a gigantic margin.

Gus also had a great season up until like February, him and Schneider were a pretty reliable 3rd pair. It fell apart after the all start break but so far Gus is the only partner where Schneider hasn't been an absolute disaster and that's probably more Gus than Schneider.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

He’s not suited for any other role other than to be carried by Fox.

He's not even suited for this.

For those who are claiming he just had an off year, I think calling it down year" is drastically underselling how bad he was. he's been a bottom 1% player at his position as far as offense goes for basically his entire career (which should really eliminate him from top 4 play as it is. You don't have to be a dynamo, but you can't be that bad and eat those minutes.) He carried that over while becoming legitimately bad at defense. He was bad at the one thing he used to be good at while continuing to be one of the worst at his position at the other end of the ice.

He got progressively worse as the season went on too. They should have cut bait the second they had the chance to and it's incredible that the FO has let this play out to the point where just letting him walk for nothing as a UFA would be seen as a win.

 

[Fitzy]

How did we supposedly win a president's trophy if half our roster was so horrible the whole year

You guys always go polar with assessments. Everyone is either a god or a lobotomized troglodyte

 

[patnyrnyg]

Rangers fans: This guy sucks. why did we sign him? He has no value

Also Rangers fans: When he sucks, we can get a 2nd for him at the deadline.

 

[Raspewtin]

Rangers fans: This guy sucks. why did we sign him? He has no value

Also Rangers fans: When he sucks, we can get a 2nd for him at the deadline.

this clapback is so boring

we're just posters on a message board. as has been proven 9 billion times, FOs have different priorities and opinions than we do.

 

[eco's bones]

It's more important to not have bad players playing big minutes than it is to have good players. Bad players make everyone else worse. Lindgren creates 20 minutes per game where we're shorthanded in the offensive zone, and that's a generous summation of his game, not even getting into the fact that he also sucked defensively this past year.

We've been through this before. Girardi was on the ice for just about every back-breaking goal against for an entire era and all we did was sit back and say "Nash should have scored more goals." McDonagh-Girardi put up a 42% xGF in the 2014 playoffs WHEN THE TEAM WAS ACTUALLY GOOD! Nash should have scored more goals.

The best part is that you mentioned Fox. How exactly do you expect Fox to play well when he has to play two positions?

Well we agree on Nash should have scored more goals. We know why he didn't now----his concussion history because of which he stopped driving the net and became much more a perimeter player. He had 8 30 goal (3 of which were 40) years and 7 of them were with Columbus. He had one 40 goal year with the Rangers and his next best was 26. His offense tended to disappear in the playoffs. It wasn't good enough for me. FWIW I liked Gaborik better.

I'm not crazy about Lindgren either. To me he's a $2.5-3 mil player and it would be better if he were bottom pairing. If we're going to give him $4.5 then this year should be his last with us. He was maxing out on his cap value last year....giving him that much more right now is well more than he's worth to my eyes. At the moment I don't see a replacement on the horizon unless Scanlin or Mackey can take his job away from him which doesn't seem all that likely. I also don't think Jones has proven a lot either and the rumblings earlier in the offseason that the Rangers aren't convinced about him either didn't surprise me. The Rangers defense needs some serious upgrading.

 

[Profet]

How did we supposedly win a president's trophy if half our roster was so horrible the whole year

You guys always go polar with assessments. Everyone is either a god or a lobotomized troglodyte

Because this team is built for the regular season... not the playoffs.

All the dipsydoo crap that teams are not ready for in the regular season are thoroughly scouted and coached for in a playoff series.

 

[Machinehead]

How did we supposedly win a president's trophy if half our roster was so horrible the whole year

You guys always go polar with assessments. Everyone is either a god or a lobotomized troglodyte

Honestly? I have no idea.

The Rangers weren't good in regard to analytics, but they also weren't good with the luck stats. They literally outscored their opponents by one goal over the course of the season at even strength.

There's nothing to indicate they were a good team in terms of controlling play, but there's also nothing to indicate that they were opportunistic or "found a way," because their shooting percentage was for shit and they didn't score a lot of goals. They didn't outscore opponents.

They profile as a team that isn't particularly good at anything where literally everything went right for a season and they won every close game. Not counting empty netters, did we win by more than one goal the entire playoffs?

I don't need to tell you that playing this way and winning probably isn't sustainable.

 

[McRanger]

How did we supposedly win a president's trophy if half our roster was so horrible the whole year

You guys always go polar with assessments. Everyone is either a god or a lobotomized troglodyte

Because we had great special teams and outside of 2 months had great goaltending. And we won a crazy amount of close and one goal games.

We are mediocre as hell at 5v5 and most of that is because we play bad players big minutes.

 

[zlev]

Honestly? I have no idea.

The Rangers weren't good in regard to analytics, but they also weren't good with the luck stats. They literally outscored their opponents by one goal over the course of the season at even strength.

There's nothing to indicate they were a good team in terms of controlling play, but there's also nothing to indicate that they were opportunistic or "found a way," because their shooting percentage was for shit and they didn't score a lot of goals. They didn't outscore opponents.

They profile as a team that isn't particularly good at anything where literally everything went right for a season and they won every close game. Not counting empty netters, did we win by more than one goal the entire playoffs?

I don't need to tell you that playing this way and winning probably isn't sustainable.

our special teams were awesome

 

[gabevh3]

How did we supposedly win a president's trophy if half our roster was so horrible the whole year

You guys always go polar with assessments. Everyone is either a god or a lobotomized troglodyte

So imagine if the whole roster was good. Would've broken the nhl record

 

[Machinehead]

our special teams were awesome

Yeah, but it still doesn't track with how bad they were at pretty much everything else. And we're talking about goals here, nothing fancy.

Special teams included, the Rangers had the 7th best goal differential.

Is that good? Sure, it's good. Florida, Dallas, Edmonton, and Carolina were better. That tracks. Those are the teams better than us. The Stanley Cup winner is one of one.

We simply won more games than we should have because of variance and hockey being hockey.

When people point out the holes on the roster, they're doing so because there's a whole tier of teams above us and you don't win a championship like that.

 

[zlev]

Yeah, but it still doesn't track with how bad they were at pretty much everything else. And we're talking about goals here, nothing fancy.

Special teams included, the Rangers had the 7th best goal differential.

Is that good? Sure, it's good. Florida, Dallas, Edmonton, and Carolina were better. That tracks. Those are the teams better than us. The Stanley Cup winner is one of one.

We simply won more games than we should have because of variance and hockey being hockey.

When people point out the holes on the roster, they're doing so because there's a whole tier of teams above us and you don't win a championship like that.

oh i fully agree, this team isn't winning shit. but special teams won us a ton of games last year.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Yeah, but it still doesn't track with how bad they were at pretty much everything else. And we're talking about goals here, nothing fancy.

Special teams included, the Rangers had the 7th best goal differential.

Is that good? Sure, it's good. Florida, Dallas, Edmonton, and Carolina were better. That tracks. Those are the teams better than us. The Stanley Cup winner is one of one.

We simply won more games than we should have because of variance and hockey being hockey.

When people point out the holes on the roster, they're doing so because there's a whole tier of teams above us and you don't win a championship like that.

It's safe to say that variance is pretty much the only reason why the rangers record was what it was. PDO or any other luck based measurements don't always account for that. Meaning the rangers might not have seemed lucky based on shooting percentage or save percentage, but it's more about when they scored or when they got the timely save more than the total quantity of them. So I couldn't agree more.

 

[Captain Lindy]

Can Trouba be bought out now?

 

[will1066]

It's safe to say that variance is pretty much the only reason why the rangers record was what it was. PDO or any other luck based measurements don't always account for that. Meaning the rangers might not have seemed lucky based on shooting percentage or save percentage, but it's more about when they scored or when they got the timely save more than the total quantity of them. So I couldn't agree more.

I think, with one single word, we were "clutch" this past season. Clutch was Kreider's natural hatty in an elimination game. Clutch was going 8-1 in 3v3 OT, a big part of the amount of 1-goal games we won. Our shootout record was 4-3, another 4 1-goal victories.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

How did we supposedly win a president's trophy if half our roster was so horrible the whole year

You guys always go polar with assessments. Everyone is either a god or a lobotomized troglodyte

Because the gods were godlike.

And we won pretty much every OT game. Basically the only difference between the amazing Laviolette 2023-24 and the horrible Gallant 2022-23 where we lost most of our OT games .

Pretty much all of our wins were by 1 goal lol

 

[Ruggs225]

A great deal would've been one year @ $3-3.5M AAV.

This is 1-1,5M too much for him.

Wouldn’t that have been less than his qualifying offer? Why would the player take that then?

Its a one year deal. We have cap space to play with already this year. Its fine. There is noone else to sign, and frankly we dont have much assets to move at trade deadline to make a big splash anyway.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Wouldn’t that have been less than his qualifying offer? Why would the player take that then?

Its a one year deal. We have cap space to play with already this year. Its fine. There is noone else to sign, and frankly we dont have much assets to move at trade deadline to make a big splash anyway.

A lot of posters here dont understand basic things. We couldnt give him less than his QO unless we let him walk.

 

[Hire Sather]

What should they have done about Lindgren?

Traded him or just not signed him

 

[Ail]

Honestly when the best thing you can say about the offseason is "at least Lindgren only got a 1 year deal" it's a complete failure. Outside of youth progressing there is 0 reason to be excited about this season as of now. Grim.

 

[Hire Sather]

Honestly when the best thing you can say about the offseason is "at least Lindgren only got a 1 year deal" it's a complete failure. Outside of youth progressing there is 0 reason to be excited about this season as of now. Grim.

Thank whoever leaked it to Brooks and Brooks' ego of having to report the story

It destroyed our off-season