Your the GM, What Changes do you make to the lineup this summer

[Machinehead]

All of his production comes at 5v5 too. He's a "defensive specialist" who produces like a 1st liner at 5v5.

People don't understand how much production in the NHL leans on first unit powerplay time.

Danault is scoring in the high 40's to low 50's at even strength. In most years, less than ten guys in the whole league hit 60.

McDavid consistently hits 80, but he's not from Earth.

 

[Machinehead]

I guess you forget the 2 game set where Trouba knocked the f*** out of one of the Bruins, Lemieux put a beating on Frederic and Lindgren hammered Pasternak?

They went 1-1 in those games, but over the course of both games they definitely got the better of the Bruins physically. They're anything but a tough and gritty team. They have elements of it, maybe even more of it than the Rangers do, but I wouldn't categorize the Rangers as tough or gritty either.

They didn't ride "toughness and grit" to beating Washington. Boston won because they were the deeper team overall and their top players showed up. They'll make pretty easy work of who ever wins the Pens-Isles series too.

On the NYR: Their issues last year really stemmed from listless play (a lot of this was on coaching) and a homogenous approach to creating offense (which was both a roster construction and a coaching thing). Our forecheck is non existent, we lost like 90% of the races to loose pucks, our board play was awful, etc. If we want to equate being "soft" with lacking in those areas then yeah, we're soft. That needs to improve.

Just gonna bookmark this and refer to it from now on lol

 

[Off Sides]

I guess you forget the 2 game set where Trouba knocked the f*** out of one of the Bruins, Lemieux put a beating on Frederic and Lindgren hammered Pasternak?

They went 1-1 in those games, but over the course of both games they definitely got the better of the Bruins physically. They're anything but a tough and gritty team. They have elements of it, maybe even more of it than the Rangers do, but I wouldn't categorize the Rangers as tough or gritty either.

They didn't ride "toughness and grit" to beating Washington. Boston won because they were the deeper team overall and their top players showed up. They'll make pretty easy work of who ever wins the Pens-Isles series too.

On the NYR: Their issues last year really stemmed from listless play (a lot of this was on coaching) and a homogenous approach to creating offense (which was both a roster construction and a coaching thing). Our forecheck is non existent, we lost like 90% of the races to loose pucks, our board play was awful, etc. If we want to equate being "soft" with lacking in those areas then yeah, we're soft. That needs to improve.

That is where I am at as well, however I think a big part in curing that has to come from the wing position where the youth is.

Danault for example, I get where he could add value to the Rangers, yet if all the wings play like they did this past season the results will not differ just because they changed the center.

 

[NYSPORTS]

I guess you forget the 2 game set where Trouba knocked the f*** out of one of the Bruins, Lemieux put a beating on Frederic and Lindgren hammered Pasternak?

They went 1-1 in those games, but over the course of both games they definitely got the better of the Bruins physically. They're anything but a tough and gritty team. They have elements of it, maybe even more of it than the Rangers do, but I wouldn't categorize the Rangers as tough or gritty either.

They didn't ride "toughness and grit" to beating Washington. Boston won because they were the deeper team overall and their top players showed up. They'll make pretty easy work of who ever wins the Pens-Isles series too.

On the NYR: Their issues last year really stemmed from listless play (a lot of this was on coaching) and a homogenous approach to creating offense (which was both a roster construction and a coaching thing). Our forecheck is non existent, we lost like 90% of the races to loose pucks, our board play was awful, etc. If we want to equate being "soft" with lacking in those areas then yeah, we're soft. That needs to improve.

the Rangers beat the Islanders too. That is, until the Islanders started playing playoff hockey and destroyed the Rangers. The Bruins would be no different.

If you think those few games vs Boston define both these teams i think you're drinking kool aid. That Bruins team is awesome on the boards and has more grit than this Rangers team could dream of. They would destroy our Rangers. The same Carolina team which manhandled the Rangers lost the Bruins in 5 games last season.

Boston isn't physical??? You're actually praising the Rangers vs them? Your take is so far off it's tough to put into words

 

[Raspewtin]

the Rangers beat the Islanders too. That is, until the Islanders started playing playoff hockey and destroyed the Rangers. The Bruins would be no different.

If you think those few games vs Boston define both these teams i think you're drinking kool aid. That Bruins team is awesome on the boards and has more grit than this Rangers team could dream of. They would destroy our Rangers. The same Carolina team which manhandled the Rangers lost the Bruins in 5 games last season.

Boston isn't physical??? You're actually praising the Rangers vs them? Your take is so far off it's tough to put into words

rangers beat playoff team: "all luck! pond hockey! they clearly weren't at their best!"

rangers lose to playoff team: "can't beat playoff style hockey! they were ground into dust! rangers have no answer as usual!"

Some weird gaslighting/memory holing going on like we didn't just watch an entire team for an entire season have many many many many games where they got their assess handed to them and bodied all over the ice.

Derisively writing 'toffness' or some equivalent doesn't change that, and the old coach didn't have evil mind controlling powers that made them play collectively as creampuffs.

I get the feeling you get much more pleasure out of calling the rangers creampuffs than when the rangers do anything good

 

[NYSPORTS]

rangers beat playoff team: "all luck! pond hockey! they clearly weren't at their best!"

rangers lose to playoff team: "can't beat playoff style hockey! they were ground into dust! rangers have no answer as usual!"

call them a Stanley Cup champ sitting at home for all i care.

 

[a tribe cq]

I still can't fathom how people don't realize that toughness/grit doesn't always correlate to big hits and fighting.

Boston is definitely a tough team. Their puck possession, board play, net front and the physical means of separating player from puck are all aspects of NHL toughness. They also have decent size up front and on the backend with a fair amount of their impact players being 6'0/6'1+, 195+lbs.

 

[Raspewtin]

call them a Stanley Cup champ sitting at home for all i care.

what are you even talking about

 

[Machinehead]

It depends on what we're talking about.

If we want to think about it the way @Uninstaaled said: "Our forecheck is non existent, we lost like 90% of the races to loose pucks, our board play was awful, etc.," then yes, the Bruins are better at that and everyone here wants to make us better.

If you wanna talk about the other nonsense, here's how we ranked:

Penalty Minutes: 3rd
Penalties/60: 5th
Major Penalties: Tied 1st
Hits/60: 13th

We're already gritty when either the whistle blows, it doesn't matter, or it's actively hurting us. I want to do that *less*.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

the Rangers beat the Islanders too. That is, until the Islanders started playing playoff hockey and destroyed the Rangers. The Bruins would be no different.

If you think those few games vs Boston define both these teams i think you're drinking kool aid. That Bruins team is awesome on the boards and has more grit than this Rangers team could dream of. They would destroy our Rangers. The same Carolina team which manhandled the Rangers lost the Bruins in 5 games last season.

Boston isn't physical??? You're actually praising the Rangers vs them? Your take is so far off it's tough to put into words

No, I'm just making the point that the Bruins didn't out tough and grit the Caps to win their series and they aren't an overly gritty group to begin with. If you watched the series that should have been clear.

The Rangers pasted them plenty in the regular season. That doesn't make them a better team or a tough team. It wasn't praise for the Rangers as much as it was illustrating the fact that the Bruins being this tough, gritty group is a myth. They're more diverse and MUCH better coached than the Rangers of 2021 were. I'm in full agreement that they (NYR) need to improve the roster to become less one dimensional, but a bunch of ya'll are getting it twisted. It's literally like swapping 2-3 players out of our current group for 2-3 different players and then a shift in mentality. Not some massive overhaul.

 

[NYSPORTS]

what are you even talking about

responding to your post.

 

[NYSPORTS]

No, I'm just making the point that the Bruins didn't out tough and grit the Caps to win their series and they aren't an overly gritty group to begin with. If you watched the series that should have been clear.

The Rangers pasted them plenty in the regular season. That doesn't make them a better team or a tough team. It wasn't praise for the Rangers as much as it was illustrating the fact that the Bruins being this tough, gritty group is a myth. They're more diverse and MUCH better coached than the Rangers of 2021 were. I'm in full agreement that they (NYR) need to improve the roster to become less one dimensional, but a bunch of ya'll are getting it twisted. It's literally like swapping 2-3 players out of our current group for 2-3 different players and then a shift in mentality. Not some massive overhaul.

the turnovers based on the board play was lopsided while the hits are high despite favoring the caps. The board play by Boston was dominant. This group has played this style for years. No idea what series you watched.

Actually, i'm not sure you watch the Rangers based on your take.

 

[Machinehead]

It's always a myth and that's the problem with these discussions.

The 2010-11 Bruins were one of the smallest teams in the league (even with Chara and Lucic!). The 2018-19 Blues were 25th in hits. Those teams did things we need to get better at, certainly.

But you can see it in the Around the NHL threads: it's the big hits and stupidity that get people talking. We're already great at that.

 

[Edge]

People don't understand how much production in the NHL leans on first unit powerplay time.

Danault is scoring in the high 40's to low 50's at even strength. In most years, less than ten guys in the whole league hit 60.

McDavid consistently hits 80, but he's not from Earth.

It's part of the same challenge when talking about rookie numbers for Laf or why certain players aren't hitting plateaus.

When it comes Danault, I have no problem with him as a middle six guy who can slide up or down as we need him, give us a different look, and help balance out the roster. The cost and terms are TBD. But I'd have zero problem going with Zibanejad, Danault/Chytil in the top 9.

 

[Machinehead]

It's part of the same challenge when talking about rookie numbers for Laf or why certain players aren't hitting plateaus.

When it comes Danault, I have no problem with him as a middle six guy who can slide up or down as we need him, give us a different look, and help balance out the roster. The cost and terms are TBD. But I'd have zero problem going with Zibanejad, Danault/Chytil in the top 9.

It's a double whammy with Lafreniere because he also barely sniffed the powerplay most of the year. So you've got a teenager pacing for 30 ES points over 82 when 60 is rarified air.

 

[Edge]

It's a double whammy with Lafreniere because he also barely sniffed the powerplay most of the year. So you've got a teenager pacing for 30 ES points over 82 when 60 is rarified air.

I think that's why ES production per 60 is such an underutilized metric. It's not perfect, nor does it paint a comprehensive picture, but it does at least help provide some perspective about the role of powerplay time and trying to compare results across vastly different spaces.

 

[a tribe cq]

It's the Vrana effect, no PP time, stuck behind OV8 and barely getting any TOI, while having some of the best 5v5 production numbers in the league.

 

[Trxjw]

In a vacuum, Danault would be a very good player to add to this roster. Plays the kind of game we're missing in the middle and I don't think it'd be completely unreasonable to expect career highs if he's riding shotgun to Panarin, Laf, Kakko, etc.

That being said, he's going to be 29 in the first year of his new deal. He's coming off a down year. He allegedly turned out a 6yr/$30m offer from Montreal. Plus he got his bell rung a few weeks back and now has a concussion on his medical. I'm a bit bearish on his long-term projection given all those factors. If I could get him for 3-4 years at under $5m per year, I might roll the dice on that but centers are always at a premium. Plus that also requires that we either move Strome outright or bump him or Chytil to the wing. That in turn means you've gotta have a deal lined up to trade Buch or another winger. It's a lot of moving parts just to get a guy I'm not 100% sold on.

 

[NYSPORTS]

It's always a myth and that's the problem with these discussions.

The 2010-11 Bruins were one of the smallest teams in the league (even with Chara and Lucic!). The 2018-19 Blues were 25th in hits. Those teams did things we need to get better at, certainly.

But you can see it in the Around the NHL threads: it's the big hits and stupidity that get people talking. We're already great at that.

the myth is from those who have no idea what they're watching. The Blues were amazing on the boards. Has nothing to with hits or a 25th ranking. Is that ranking from the the worthless regular season? Lol, my gosh, as if the Canes vs Rangers playin series wasn't enough to recognize the Reg season and beyond is different.

Gee, the Rangers skated circles around last year's Dallas Stars yet the Rangers appeared to be skating in slush vs the Canes while the Stars made the finals. Gee, i wonder why?

 

[Off Sides]

Danault is fine, him on the Rangers would be fine, expecting his numbers and/or metrics to be similar on the Rangers as they are on Montreal is where my doubt comes into play. Gallagher and Tatar fore-check, dig, win battles, and they are both good producers. Rangers closest wings to them are probably Buch, who they may not keep, and I'd like to say Kakko yet he does not produce much offense from his good board work. I'm not thinking he will look like he is worth what his contract will be on the Rangers.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I realize I’m in the vast minority here and have no illusions that it will actually play out, but I would rather roll with Strome - Danault - Chytil down the middle and cut bait with Zibanejad.

 

[romba]

Zibanejad is inbetween for me. he's not the grittiest but he's always used his size and engaged on the boards. he did not do that this year, simple as that and it really reflected in his on ice metrics. he needs to be more engaged but I also think some time away to continue recovering from covid and injuries will do well.

I'm with you, but Zbad's lack of durability makes that type of game and play style a risk for him to take on, and with him upcoming contract negotiations I can't see him risking his body too much

 

[Daves a mess]

The Caps with Wilson in particular are such a gritty team with loads of tuffness. Teams like that always go really far in the playoffs.

Like Boston?
Could be.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Like Boston?
Could be.

careful, some think our Rangers are tougher than Boston.

 

[Raspewtin]

I'm with you, but Zbad's lack of durability makes that type of game and play style a risk for him to take on, and with him upcoming contract negotiations I can't see him risking his body too much

well yeah, i'm assuming he's here. I'm not sold that's the right decision to make myself.