PDA

View Full Version : [Brooks] Dolan: "I don’t think we had great leadership last year"



Phil in Absentia
04-19-2018, 11:45 AM
The Rangers are not only looking for a coach, they are looking for a captain in the wake of the trade that sent Ryan McDonagh (and J.T. Miller) to the Lightning. The next captain may or may not be on the roster.

“We need strong leadership in the locker room. I don’t think we had great leadership last year,” Dolan said. “I think maybe we added a burden to Ryan when we made him captain that affected him on and off the ice and kind of changed his own perception of himself. But he was a really good player for us for a long time.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/18/rangers-owner-reveals-what-he-wants-in-the-next-coach/

torontonyr
04-19-2018, 11:51 AM
Posted in the rebuild thread, but I think this is probably the best insight as to what our motives are moving forward. I think it's clear that we're indeed, rebuilding on the fly as I've said forever.

ThirtyONE
04-19-2018, 12:04 PM
I hate to agree with anything Dolan says, but... I agree. I think it was a mistake. He was too young, not enough experience.

Phil in Absentia
04-19-2018, 12:07 PM
I mean, I still maintain that we have no insight into this very specific matter given so much of it occurs where we can't see, but since being named captain, McDonagh's play did regress. I'm not sure if they're actually related or not, but the optics aren't kind.

I still think, again, fully understanding that this is almost entirely baseless speculation, that MSL and Richards were the strongest leaders this team has had since Shanahan.

phillyb™
04-19-2018, 12:08 PM
I always wonder about Dolan's involvement with the Rangers. He seems to let the Gorton and staff handle most of the day-to-day and isn't as involved as he is with the Knicks.

Drew a Penalty
04-19-2018, 12:39 PM
Cause they lost their real leader in Richards when they bought him out. It was the right move, but they suffered a significant change going from Callahan to Richards (albeit unofficially) to McDonagh in a matter of months. I also agree that it might have affected Mac's game but so did his two shoulder injuries.

I always thought Stepan should've taken over, but I doubt that changes all too much.

4EverRangerFrank
04-19-2018, 12:50 PM
Glad to read thoughts from ownership about what we all saw with our own eyes (and heard in the post-game interviews) that McD was out of his element as a Captain. Be it injuries or between his ears...he just wasn’t ‘that guy.’

lefty9
04-19-2018, 01:48 PM
fucking Av,let these players run the show behind-the-scenes even thou the team had no leadership

Giacomin
04-19-2018, 02:18 PM
Since Phil is breaking this up into bits, I'll post this here.

Who is that tough leader/captain that we can get outside of JT? JT is not tough, but certainly a Captain.

I suggest Josh Manson. In his prime, righty, contract is manageable and we have the ammo to tempt Anaheim.

Anaheim needs offense and scoring badly!! See playoffs. Our late 1st and 3rd plus Shatty and their choice of Spooner, Zuc, Names, Vesey. Even Hayes if they insist. Feel free to monkey with the return for Anaheim, but it seems this target could be gettable and solve some major needs for us.

Mark Stone would be another possibility for a captain and scorer, given his RFA status and his credibility among his teammates. He may be more beloved by his team than Manson. Unlike Manson, he is not someone we'd want sending a physical message.

Couture could handle it, but unlikely SJ even considers it and may want a haul. Can't think of anyone else? Which Captain can we pry away?

torontonyr
04-19-2018, 02:37 PM
Kovalchuk. He's about as "ovy" as you get without being "ovy". This doesn't make for great captaincy, per se, as much as it does having a win at all costs player in the lockeroom which is what we desire.

Partner that with JT and a couple of other players from within the org (andersson) and we're reestablishing the culture.

paddynyc
04-20-2018, 08:04 AM
“And I know we need that one great player who can make a difference. We’ve identified some who might become available, and if they do, we want to be in position where we’re able to get them. We’re building a lot of data and analytics into our decision-making. And it’s important for the new coach to embrace that."

This quote really jumped out at me and is it Karlsson or Tavares ? I don't know enough about either of those players as captains/leaders.


https://nypost.com/2018/04/18/rangers-owner-reveals-what-he-wants-in-the-next-coach/

Phil in Absentia
04-20-2018, 10:45 AM
Make no bones about it, if the Rangers are truly eying a one-year turnaround on this rebuild, players like Karlsson and Tavares are required. While a traditional rebuild in which the team strategically accepts at least a few losing seasons for prime drafting position could yield more sustainable long-term benefits, acquiring two franchise players with years of prime play left in their games in the same offseason would dramatically reopen the Rangers’ window to contend while 36-year-old Henrik Lundqvist is still viable.

Moreover, either player—even both—would not only answer the need for “a great player who can make a difference,” but would also resolve the leadership indictment handed down from management, given that both Karlsson and Tavares are currently serving as captains of their respective clubs.

After all, the Rangers aren’t just in the market for a new coach. They’re also in the market for a new captain. If he’s not already on the roster—here’s lookin’ at you, Chris Kreider and Mats Zuccarello—perhaps he’s yet to be acquired.

https://thehockeywriters.com/rangers-rebuild-tavares-karlsson/

--

I maintain that a traditional rebuild would be more beneficial, but it sure seems like they're set on accelerating this thing. If so, guys like JT and Karlsson are required -- especially given they kill two birds with one stone in acquiring either.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Long live the King
04-20-2018, 10:50 AM
I'm not mad at bringing in under 30 stars, just don't trade for Karlsson. Wait till next summer.

Phil in Absentia
04-20-2018, 11:07 AM
They may not have a choice. Any team trading for him is likely doing so contingent on his signing an extension with them. If they want him, they probably will need to trade for him, then extend.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Long live the King
04-20-2018, 11:13 AM
They may not have a choice. Any team trading for him is likely doing so contingent on his signing an extension with them. If they want him, they probably will need to trade for him, then extend.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Well, he can nix 10 teams right off the bat. Then it depends on Hank's influence. Sure any team trading for him will want to sign him long term. That doesn't mean he'll agree. If he really wants to play with Hank, and will only sign here, then either they don't trade him or the price comes way down... In that scenario the Sens get the best value trading him as a deadline rental.

Phil in Absentia
04-20-2018, 11:20 AM
That's not what I mean. I mean any team trading for him will likely only do so contingent on his re-signing with them. I can't imagine anyone has any interest in paying the price for him for a one-year rental.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 11:26 AM
Hell, bring fucking Doughty in here and give him the C. The dude is a monster.

phillyb™
04-20-2018, 12:01 PM
I think I'd actually hate having Doughty here. We don't play the Flames often enough.

Long live the King
04-20-2018, 12:12 PM
That's not what I mean. I mean any team trading for him will likely only do so contingent on his re-signing with them. I can't imagine anyone has any interest in paying the price for him for a one-year rental.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

I know what you mean, you're not understanding what I mean. Just because a team may be willing to pay a hefty price for him, doesn't mean he will agree to sign there, effectively giving him a full NTC instead of a 10 team list. If he were to want to play with Hank, then it would either be the Rangers get a discount or the Sens hold on to him and get what they can at the deadline, which should be more the the Rangers are willing to give up even with aforementioned discount.

Pete
04-20-2018, 12:56 PM
The Sens have ZERO leverage here (which is why clauses are dumb).

Giacomin
04-20-2018, 01:09 PM
King, I hear ya, this is exactly what the Knicks should have done with Carmelo Anthony. Yet, he may have gone to the Nets because players do not like to risk injury for that season and playoffs, just to wait for UFA. Karlsson may prefer the Rangers, but his 2nd or 3rd choice might be willing to sign his new contract almost immediately. That is a big insurance policy for one's family and a bird in the hand. Plus, then he is not jumping Ottawa to rental to perm home. It becomes Ottawa to new home. A much easier/stable transition.

Karlsson being traded to the team that is offering his new contract is the likely scenario here. If we want him, we'll have to trade for him. I'd rather eat the ice cream too, but I prefer to wake up feeling good the next day.

Phil in Absentia
04-20-2018, 01:50 PM
The Sens have ZERO leverage here (which is why clauses are dumb).

They have some. Very little, though. His clause allows him to select ten teams he won't go to. That gives them a sizable field, likely of most of the contenders and big markets, to set a market with.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Giacomin
04-20-2018, 02:09 PM
They have some. Very little, though. His clause allows him to select ten teams he won't go to. That gives them a sizable field, likely of most of the contenders and big markets, to set a market with.



They have enough to expect that they trade him on or before draft day for as many picks and high quality prospects they can get. The owner really does not want any salary back at all. ELCs, prospects and picks. Melnyk may also get his wish to ditch Ryan's contract.

Are we really the right team to be giving up many of our cheap quality assets and tons of long term cap space?

jsrangers
04-20-2018, 02:10 PM
Kovalchuk. He's about as "ovy" as you get without being "ovy". This doesn't make for great captaincy, per se, as much as it does having a win at all costs player in the lockeroom which is what we desire.

Partner that with JT and a couple of other players from within the org (andersson) and we're reestablishing the culture.

neither has won anything at this level as a leader. Ovy plays with much more heart and edge imo. He's also a few years younger, we can spin it many different way but Kovalchuk signed a massive deal and walked away - that's bs a totally selfish move, hardly the type of move a true leader would make. Did it benefit the Devils in the long run cap wise, sure did. Do you think they signed him with the intention of his disappearing - no hardly. Having watched a boatload of Devils games too he's often lazy floater, who needed to be reminded there were two sides to the puck - that's a real leadership quality. IF he comes here I hope he succeeds but I hate the thought. A 35 year old one-way player that hasn't played in this grinding league in years to me is something we've tried in the past (where we've gotten guys a year or three too late). I don't think he's a part of the answer to a long term solution which is bringing this team full circle and back to a cup contending team. I think it's a desperate move, and IF the guy wants to win as he say why the hell would he come here now?

Phil in Absentia
04-20-2018, 02:13 PM
They have enough to expect that they trade him on or before draft day for as many picks and high quality prospects they can get. The owner really does not want any salary back at all. ELCs, prospects and picks. Melnyk may also get his wish to ditch Ryan's contract.

Are we really the right team to be giving up many of our cheap quality assets and tons of long term cap space?

The answer to that question hinges entirely on what your expectations of next season are. Like I wrote about (https://thehockeywriters.com/rangers-rebuild-tavares-karlsson/), if the goal is getting back to the playoffs and/or becoming a contender while Lundqvist is viable (which clearly appears to be the case), then yes. It's a damn the torpedos situation. Of course a traditional rebuild would bear more fruit, but they clearly have little interest in a prolonged tenure at the bottom. For good reason. Lundqvist.

Or as McKenzie quipped, “At the end of the day, New York is New York and the Rangers are the Rangers.”

Pete
04-20-2018, 02:30 PM
Makes you wonder what they think of Igor.

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 02:38 PM
Makes you wonder what they think of Igor.

What do you mean?

Pete
04-20-2018, 02:42 PM
What do you mean?

I guess I'm just wondering if they really felt he was a stud, why put so much emphasis on an immediate return to the playoffs vs. rebuilding the right way (which according to Dolan they wanted to do it like Chicago and Pitt did)?

Do they feel obligated to win one for Hank?

Do they not think the heir apparent is that good?

Is it playoff revenue?

Phil in Absentia
04-20-2018, 02:44 PM
Well Igor is at least one more year away from the NHL, right? Maybe it's an issue of wanting to give Hank every opportunity to win now, this coming season, knowing it might be his last as the sure fire starter?


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

jsrangers
04-20-2018, 02:53 PM
I just don't think there's a realistic scenario to become a serious contender next year or even too. Could they continue down the same previous path of trying to paste together parts and pieces to still come up short of the ultimate goal - sure, and at the expense of doing it the right way with younger players and draft picks that will ned time to grow. I was really hoping this time was different. I love Hank but I'm not convinced he's not on a sharper decline that we had hoped and thought. His play was dreadful at times, the team around him was borderline junk, that may not change much on the back end but still he wasn't good.

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 03:33 PM
I guess I'm just wondering if they really felt he was a stud, why put so much emphasis on an immediate return to the playoffs vs. rebuilding the right way (which according to Dolan they wanted to do it like Chicago and Pitt did)?

Do they feel obligated to win one for Hank?

Do they not think the heir apparent is that good?

Is it playoff revenue?

They're not worried. They offered to Hank an out and he didn't take it. If he said yes they would move him.

Pete
04-20-2018, 03:34 PM
They're not worried. They offered to Hank an out and he didn't take it. If he said yes they would move him.

So what's the rush to try and build this in a year when there is no clear path to do that (too much uncertainty around bagging the big UFAs or trade targets).

Giacomin
04-20-2018, 03:57 PM
The answer to that question hinges entirely on what your expectations of next season are. Like I wrote about (https://thehockeywriters.com/rangers-rebuild-tavares-karlsson/), if the goal is getting back to the playoffs and/or becoming a contender while Lundqvist is viable (which clearly appears to be the case), then yes. It's a damn the torpedos situation. Of course a traditional rebuild would bear more fruit, but they clearly have little interest in a prolonged tenure at the bottom. For good reason. Lundqvist.

Or as McKenzie quipped, “At the end of the day, New York is New York and the Rangers are the Rangers.”

The expectations seemed to be to rebuild the Rangers into a Stanley Cup winner through youth, skill, speed and character.

There was some color added here and there. About having traded picks and now using the strength of the draft and putting in the hard work. That Gorton was not only looking for picks and prospects, but some players closer to ready or current NHLers. That we were going to try and win/ make playoffs and not looking for long rebuild. IOW, no planned tanking.

Then there is the elephant from Dolan, which may tell us something. Paraphrasing, he said there is no reason to not think we can't make the playoffs as the 7th or 8th seed. What does that tell you?

It tells me we are not going to get both Tavares and Karlsson, then Kovy to boot. Getting both, plus Kovy means we are going for the Cup this year right? But he didn't say that. Maybe Dolan just wants one marquee star and playoff revenue, while we build through the draft.

jsrangers
04-20-2018, 03:57 PM
So what's the rush to try and build this in a year when there is no clear path to do that (too much uncertainty around bagging the big UFAs or trade targets).

Exactly. They could probably piece together a team that squeaks into the playoffs only to get bounced early, so what changed from the last few years. They will have accomplished nothing in the big picture nd to me that's the worst case scenario. All the talk about doing it right and it sure sounds like more of the same is still a likely option.

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 04:11 PM
So what's the rush to try and build this in a year when there is no clear path to do that (too much uncertainty around bagging the big UFAs or trade targets).

I don't get the sense that there's a rush. There's much uncertainty in everything, isn't there? I mean look at Edmonton and Phx. They're "doing it the right way" and still sucking ass year after year, meanwhile other teams are proving it doesn't need to be so.

Dolan specifically said he "thinks" they can finished 8th. I mean, that's not really a rush job. That's being hopeful that every player takes a step forward and you get a little luck. They're hoping to do what the Devils and Flyers did which is a fair goal IMO.

I think they'll bring in young kids with older "leaders" to show them the way. To me, that's the right way to do it. I assume they'll do their homework on players like Tavares and Kovalchuck. Realistically, they'll need to fill out the lineup somehow. It can't be all draft picks.

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 04:13 PM
Exactly. They could probably piece together a team that squeaks into the playoffs only to get bounced early, so what changed from the last few years. They will have accomplished nothing in the big picture nd to me that's the worst case scenario. All the talk about doing it right and it sure sounds like more of the same is still a likely option.

It's not the same at all. A young, inexperienced team squeezing into the playoffs after a season of serious growing pains is not the same as an old, slow, tired team that's been there 9 out of 10 seasons. It's actually a stark contrast.

CBrowningPI
04-20-2018, 05:51 PM
I just don't think there's a realistic scenario to become a serious contender next year or even too. Could they continue down the same previous path of trying to paste together parts and pieces to still come up short of the ultimate goal - sure, and at the expense of doing it the right way with younger players and draft picks that will ned time to grow. I was really hoping this time was different. I love Hank but I'm not convinced he's not on a sharper decline that we had hoped and thought. His play was dreadful at times, the team around him was borderline junk, that may not change much on the back end but still he wasn't good.Totally agree. When I said Hank didn't have "it", that was certainly vague but I didn't want to list the plethora of weaknesses he's shown this season. Because he's so beloved by the majority of N.Y. fans, I feel the need to refrain from criticizing his play on the ice. The defensive breakdown excuse was all too prevalent.

Sent from my [device_name] using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Pete
04-20-2018, 06:03 PM
I don't get the sense that there's a rush. There's much uncertainty in everything, isn't there? I mean look at Edmonton and Phx. They're "doing it the right way" and still sucking ass year after year, meanwhile other teams are proving it doesn't need to be so.

Dolan specifically said he "thinks" they can finished 8th. I mean, that's not really a rush job. That's being hopeful that every player takes a step forward and you get a little luck. They're hoping to do what the Devils and Flyers did which is a fair goal IMO.

I think they'll bring in young kids with older "leaders" to show them the way. To me, that's the right way to do it. I assume they'll do their homework on players like Tavares and Kovalchuck. Realistically, they'll need to fill out the lineup somehow. It can't be all draft picks.Mailing it in this year and trying to compete next year feels rushed. Why not give the Hajek and Howdens a year in the A, get another high pick, and come loaded in 2019-20?

When I say uncertainty it means their plan is to sign JT and trade for EK65. Those aren't "locks".

jsrangers
04-20-2018, 06:12 PM
It's not the same at all. A young, inexperienced team squeezing into the playoffs after a season of serious growing pains is not the same as an old, slow, tired team that's been there 9 out of 10 seasons. It's actually a stark contrast.

If you're plan is thinking they're going to role Kovalchuk in here as some kind of answer that's a short sighted approach to me. I can't not see any scenario where they land Taveras and EK and for EK at what price gutting a bunch of draft picks and cost controlled players while probably being forced to take on Ryan? That's a great plan and more of the same. The only easy get is probably Kovalchuk (which is more of the same). Even getting all three of those guys which won't happen doesn't make them a cup team. I just don't think there's any short cut to the ultimate goal. Getting Taveras at a high cap hit is the best of the three long term. On the flip side IF he wants to win he's not coming here to begin with. I still think the odds favor him staying where he is.

Stay the course and do it through unloading the dead wood and go with a youth movement we already know the other approach didn't work.

As for Dolan he's resume with the knicks and rangers is one of futility in the big picture. So the less he says the better. He should stick to fighting with Oakley, that's what he's most known for the last few years along with throwing people (Hornacek and others) under the bus.

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 06:29 PM
If you're plan is thinking they're going to role Kovalchuk in here as some kind of answer that's a short sighted approach to me. I can't not see any scenario where they land Taveras and EK and for EK at what price gutting a bunch of draft picks and cost controlled players while probably being forced to take on Ryan? That's a great plan and more of the same. The only easy get is probably Kovalchuk (which is more of the same). Even getting all three of those guys which won't happen doesn't make them a cup team. I just don't think there's any short cut to the ultimate goal. Getting Taveras at a high cap hit is the best of the three long term. On the flip side IF he wants to win he's not coming here to begin with. I still think the odds favor him staying where he is.

Stay the course and do it through unloading the dead wood and go with a youth movement we already know the other approach didn't work.

As for Dolan he's resume with the knicks and rangers is one of futility in the big picture. So the less he says the better. He should stick to fighting with Oakley, that's what he's most known for the last few years along with throwing people (Hornacek and others) under the bus.

Answer? Answer to what? The team sucks. They have half a roster. You need someone to play the games. If Kovalchuk wants to come here, why not him? You said "more of the same" but I'm not sure what the means. More of the same of what?

Resigning Grabner and Nash and hanging on to Zucc would be more of the same. Trading all our first round picks would be more of the same. Having a young roster with a few vets sprinkled in would not. What does it matter if its Kovalchuk or anyone else?

You're going way down the rabbit hole on what-ifs. There's no chance all these rumors come to fruition. And I don't think anyone is under the impression this team is playing for the cup next year. Dolan himself said he hopes they can finish 8th. Not really a lofty expectation if you ask me.

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 06:37 PM
Mailing it in this year and trying to compete next year feels rushed. Why not give the Hajek and Howdens a year in the A, get another high pick, and come loaded in 2019-20?

When I say uncertainty it means their plan is to sign JT and trade for EK65. Those aren't "locks".


Every team is trying to compete. Let's not mistake that. Buffalo didn't plan on being the worst team this year. Maybe they mailed it in once the wheels fell off but their management thought they had a good team. I did too, in September. Rangers will do the same but with some stipulation.

If you can get a top line center like Tavares, I think you get him. He's not available next summer -- which would be best for our timeline -- he's available now. He may not be the "final piece" to a cup, but he could be the starting piece. Whether or not he wants to be that is another story.

Trading for Karlsson makes absolutely no sense unless they're giving him away. So I'll hold off from commenting on that until there's more because I don't really believe they'll push hard for him.

Per Hajek and Howden, I'm working under the assumption they won't make the NHL team next year. Like you said. No rush.

jsrangers
04-20-2018, 06:40 PM
Answer? Answer to what? The team sucks. They have half a roster. You need someone to play the games. If Kovalchuk wants to come here, why not him? You said "more of the same" but I'm not sure what the means. More of the same of what?

Resigning Grabner and Nash and hanging on to Zucc would be more of the same. Trading all our first round picks would be more of the same. Having a young roster with a few vets sprinkled in would not. What does it matter if its Kovalchuk or anyone else?

You're going way down the rabbit hole on what-ifs. There's no chance all these rumors come to fruition. And I don't think anyone is under the impression this team is playing for the cup next year. Dolan himself said he hopes they can finish 8th. Not really a lofty expectation if you ask me.

Simple - bringing in a guy years too late and for what to put a small bit of polish on a huge turd to maybe help squeeze into the 8th slot? Hell we've never seen that before now have we?

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 07:00 PM
Simple - bringing in a guy years too late and for what to put a small bit of polish on a huge turd to maybe help squeeze into the 8th slot? Hell we've never seen that before now have we?

I mean, if a team full of young guys is a turd then you're in for some shit.

Who do you propose actually play the games while most of the prospects play in the AHL, College, KHL, etc. next season?

Fatfrancesa
04-20-2018, 07:01 PM
Somebody should tell Dolan that leadership starts with him and he’s been a disaster from day 1 here.

The rangers owe hank nothing and hank owes the rangers nothing.

Stating they want to contend next year is hopefully just window dressing. Any serious franchise or gm understands you cannot rebuild in six months and expect a good ending to your efforts. This team should stay clear of all long term contracts rebuild their foundation and depth. Maybe they get lucky a draft a franchise player if not this summer is not the time to chase one who’s 27 or older.

The rangers did it right last time. They just happened to have a rejuvenated jagr walk through the door and a kid come out of nowhere to take the crease to lessen the growing pains. Years later they officially went all in by trading some of that depth for the player that would put them over the top. Rick Nash one of the games premier goal scorers and power forwards. It just didn’t happen but it was the right model. The biggest mistake was not knowing when to show restraint in the latter years ala yandle, Staal, etc. this francise would be in much better shape if they had.

Regardless the “success” this franchise likes to boast about for the past 14 years or so was not built overnight. It took time to become a contender. There is no shortcut here when you are on such a weak foundation.

Pete
04-20-2018, 07:29 PM
Every team is trying to compete. Let's not mistake that. Buffalo didn't plan on being the worst team this year. Maybe they mailed it in once the wheels fell off but their management thought they had a good team. I did too, in September. Rangers will do the same but with some stipulation.

If you can get a top line center like Tavares, I think you get him. He's not available next summer -- which would be best for our timeline -- he's available now. He may not be the "final piece" to a cup, but he could be the starting piece. Whether or not he wants to be that is another story.

Trading for Karlsson makes absolutely no sense unless they're giving him away. So I'll hold off from commenting on that until there's more because I don't really believe they'll push hard for him.

Per Hajek and Howden, I'm working under the assumption they won't make the NHL team next year. Like you said. No rush.Every team is realistic about their chances tho.

It's also not as simple as "If you want JT, get him." He has to want to come here.

They wanted Chara and Guerin, who both laughed at playing for us.

jsrangers
04-20-2018, 07:33 PM
Somebody should tell Dolan that leadership starts with him and he’s been a disaster from day 1 here.

The rangers owe hank nothing and hank owes the rangers nothing.

Stating they want to contend next year is hopefully just window dressing. Any serious franchise or gm understands you cannot rebuild in six months and expect a good ending to your efforts. This team should stay clear of all long term contracts rebuild their foundation and depth. Maybe they get lucky a draft a franchise player if not this summer is not the time to chase one who’s 27 or older.

The rangers did it right last time. They just happened to have a rejuvenated jagr walk through the door and a kid come out of nowhere to take the crease to lessen the growing pains. Years later they officially went all in by trading some of that depth for the player that would put them over the top. Rick Nash one of the games premier goal scorers and power forwards. It just didn’t happen but it was the right model. The biggest mistake was not knowing when to show restraint in the latter years ala yandle, Staal, etc. this francise would be in much better shape if they had.

Regardless the “success” this franchise likes to boast about for the past 14 years or so was not built overnight. It took time to become a contender. There is no shortcut here when you are on such a weak foundation.


Every team is realistic about their chances tho.

It's also not as simple as "If you want JT, get him." He has to want to come here.

They wanted Chara and Guerin, who both laughed at playing for us.

Yes both nailed it.

ThirtyONE
04-20-2018, 07:37 PM
Every team is realistic about their chances tho.

It's also not as simple as "If you want JT, get him." He has to want to come here.

They wanted Chara and Guerin, who both laughed at playing for us.

Agreed. That's exactly what I said. I just don't think it's "rushing" anything to bring him or someone like him in. In fact, I think it's necessary to have someone like that.

jsrangers
04-20-2018, 07:42 PM
huge difference between chasing JT and Kovalchuk, that's the other side of what I said. Kovalchuk is a band-aid to a compound fracture.

RangersIn7
04-21-2018, 02:37 AM
They should be patient on any big dollar, high-price acquisition, be it trade or FA. No matter how “accelerated” this re-build is, it’s wholly unrealistic to think they’re going to be contending for anything more than a WC berth and an earlier playoff exit for probably a minimum of 2 seasons. And that’s an optimistic view. With the amount of very young and inexperienced players they’re going to bring in and play, growing pains should very much be expected.

Even with a J.T. or Karlsson, or the now seemingly available Drew Doughty, they still have major holes and question marks.

I’d want no part of moving major pieces like picks and prospects for Doughty or Karlsson right now. If however, they like where they are next season, those 2 are both UFA next summer.

I’m all about them taking their lumps with the kids and seeing what happens.

ThirtyONE
04-21-2018, 12:47 PM
huge difference between chasing JT and Kovalchuk, that's the other side of what I said. Kovalchuk is a band-aid to a compound fracture.

He's not getting a big deal. I just don't understand what the problem is. 2 year deal? What's the harm? He's a warm body and can maybe help the russian players transition to NA.

Fatfrancesa
04-21-2018, 01:16 PM
I don’t have a problem with it. However the angst I have is that Kovalchuk signals what the rangers have always done. I want and expect patience. Kovalchuk on his own is no problem. If it’s just part of a broader plan to try and buy their way into contention then Gorton can go f himself.

The rumors surrounding J.T. and Karlsson along with Kovalchuk make me nervous that once again this franchise refuses to allow anyone to take them as serious hockey people rather than producers on broadway

ThirtyONE
04-21-2018, 01:21 PM
But they have to buy someone. They have 7 NHL forwards.

josh
04-21-2018, 01:46 PM
If you have a problem with the rangers acquiring 1 or 3 of the top players this league has seen in the last decade because of the stigma of how other fans will comment about your team on twitter, you have some personal issues you need to overcome.

You build the best team you can. Picks, prospects, trades, doesn't matter.

And this season , they need to get something or you'll see a worse product next season , and at that point, the hole is going to be harder to climb out of

Fatfrancesa
04-21-2018, 02:59 PM
There’s actually a very good case to be made to not sign each one of them. I see both sides to all but Karlsson. But damn me for trying to discuss it without getting insulted by the resident tough guy who claims I have personal issues as he describes players on this team as Giant Vaginas.

Pete
04-21-2018, 03:11 PM
If you have a problem with the rangers acquiring 1 or 3 of the top players this league has seen in the last decade because of the stigma of how other fans will comment about your team on twitter, you have some personal issues you need to overcome.

You build the best team you can. Picks, prospects, trades, doesn't matter.

And this season , they need to get something or you'll see a worse product next season , and at that point, the hole is going to be harder to climb out ofI have a problem with trading a ton of shit for Karlsson when we can have him or Doughty for nothing but money in a year.

Sign JT. Sign Kovy (although it's insanity to expect more than a 25/25 season from him, IMO). You have to put a team on the ice.

Trading any assets for EK is a huge mistake IMO, unless they somehow recoup them in a trade for Shattenkirk.

Puck Head
04-21-2018, 04:16 PM
I have a problem with trading a ton of shit for Karlsson when we can have him or Doughty for nothing but money in a year.

Sign JT. Sign Kovy (although it's insanity to expect more than a 25/25 season from him, IMO). You have to put a team on the ice.

Trading any assets for EK is a huge mistake IMO, unless they somehow recoup them in a trade for Shattenkirk.

Agreed with all this.
A player such as JT simply doesn't become avail very often. I'm not interested in taking a step backwards in regards to depth of prospects/picks for EK
Kovi i'm 50/50 on with a short contract.

Slobberknocker
04-21-2018, 04:47 PM
i hate dolan but think in this case he is spot on.

i'm all in on JT. i'd wait a year and go after Doughty. The man's made for Broadway.

Bugg
04-21-2018, 08:43 PM
Leadership and intangibles may be important to a degree. But for a few bounces in the LAK/NYR Finals though, McDonough would have been a Stanley Cup captain. There was a point in that series had AV lost his shit about his goalie getting run, may be the refs take a harder look and things play out differently. In that a lack of leadership, or simply a coach not capable of handling strategy in the moment? And Messier, for all his leadership, could not get some lousy NYR teams into the playoffs in his second stint here. In 1997, NYR had Messier, Leetch, Graves and a bunch of 1994 vets and Wayne Gretzky and still couldn't get past the Lindros Flyers in an ECF. And if Messier doesn't score a hat trick late in game 6 vs. the Devils, is he still a great leader? Was that leadership or a great player being in the moment.

AV was a blasted fool to not be more hands on about the lockerroom. But you have to also understand talent matters. And all the leadership, chemistry and other such unmeasurables are sometimes things sportswriters tell us all about after the fact. Haven't heard of a losing team with great leadership and wonderful chemistry.

josh
04-21-2018, 09:04 PM
McDonagh wasn’t a captain, then.

Ranger Lothbrok
04-21-2018, 09:22 PM
Just my humble opinion, but something's seriously wrong if the captaincy doesn't go to Zook. Guy literally suffered brain damage and came back like a man possessed for one of his best seasons. He has always showed up and he deserves the recognition.

Phil in Absentia
04-21-2018, 09:23 PM
That's not how leadership/letters work. Kreider nearly died from a blood clot. Does he deserve it, too? I wouldn't discount either of them for the role, but their injury history is utterly irrelevant to the equation.

Flynn
04-21-2018, 09:25 PM
Dolan is a complete buffoon... but it’s more about the Knicks, not the Rangers..

What has he done that makes him a bad hockey owner? He spends money, he lets his hockey guys do their jobs with little to no intervention. His meddling in Knicks matters have been distasterous, but he’s been there with an open checkbook and been given a good many home playoff gates in his pocket for his troubles. I have more issue with Slats than I do Dolan.

Gravesy
04-22-2018, 08:53 AM
I have a problem with trading a ton of shit for Karlsson when we can have him or Doughty for nothing but money in a year.

Sign JT. Sign Kovy (although it's insanity to expect more than a 25/25 season from him, IMO). You have to put a team on the ice.

Trading any assets for EK is a huge mistake IMO, unless they somehow recoup them in a trade for Shattenkirk.

Agreed. I’d love Tavares and I’d be happy with Kovy for a couple of seasons.
Karlsson only if Ottawa will go for a deal based on our roster players, which imo isn’t happening in a month of Sundays.

As for Dolan I’m not sure what people expect him to say. He can’t go “look Lar, our intention is to ice a bunch of kids and phone it in the entire season in order to have a run at drafting Jack Hughes.” Of course he’s going to say we’ve got ambitions for next season.

Ranger Lothbrok
04-22-2018, 12:01 PM
That's not how leadership/letters work. Kreider nearly died from a blood clot. Does he deserve it, too? I wouldn't discount either of them for the role, but their injury history is utterly irrelevant to the equation.

Well, I phrased that improperly. You're correct. It's not like: "congratulations, you're a double amputee, here's the captaincy, you earned it!" Rather, it's the fact that instead of being even a little deterred, and coming back softer, it's like he came back with something to prove. In a season where we all griped about the other captains on the roster for sometimes lackadaisical play, nobody complained about Zook. Most players lose their edge after something like that. They start to pull up a lot, or become afraid of getting hit, etc. He came back seriously like a man possessed.

So yeah, not so much that the injury is part of his credentials, but more that this guy was showing up every night in spite of it for his best season. He's been the team's leading scorer for the past three seasons in a row, and I think we can all acknowledge that it's not like he had a ton of help doing it. Granted, some nights the whole team didn't show up. But in terms of tenure, production, dedication, loyalty and heart, I don't think there's a better candidate on the roster.

rangers02
04-22-2018, 02:17 PM
If the Dolans do the same thing to us that they did to the Knicks, we will have no chance of winning anytime soon

Vodka Drunkenski
04-22-2018, 06:02 PM
Two entirely different sports and how teams are constructed.

Rosenvold
04-23-2018, 04:26 AM
I have a problem with trading a ton of shit for Karlsson when we can have him or Doughty for nothing but money in a year.

Sign JT. Sign Kovy (although it's insanity to expect more than a 25/25 season from him, IMO). You have to put a team on the ice.

Trading any assets for EK is a huge mistake IMO, unless they somehow recoup them in a trade for Shattenkirk.

Exactly. There is a fine line between rebuilding and restocking the farm and unhealthy tanking. What the Rangers did this year was a tough, deep and very massive tear-down, but it came mid-season and had all the desired effects. That was both necessary, prudent and right in time with a strong 2018 draft and a team that wasn't good enough. Fine. But to keep tearing down and entering a season with a team that's deliberately built to lose - that's another level. That could be very toxic for the culture and self-image of the entire franchise and could possibly alienate fans all across the board.

The Rangers shouldn't go that far. Even if they are the worst team in the league, they are still most likely to pick 4th in 2019. It's simply not worth it. Like I lined up earlier in another thread, it's not about being worst, it's about prioritizing future assets and development and making smart moves - sometimes even mortgaging the present for future gains. You eat years of your expensive contracts and give chances to young or fringe players. You build up a new culture around new faces. You sell high on players who are not part of the long-term planning. Maybe you finish 25th - maybe you finish 17th - so be it. You do not want to dig a hole like the Coyotes or the Sabres find themselves in after years of losing.

Slobberknocker
04-23-2018, 09:59 AM
i dont think that is the plan at all. i believe the philosophy here is a reload.

you land tavares and if the price is right try to bring JVR in here (he is a rangers fan)
and i think u can right this ship pretty quick if you make a few shrewd moves on the blueline.

NYR2711
04-23-2018, 11:02 AM
i dont think that is the plan at all. i believe the philosophy here is a reload.

you land tavares and if the price is right try to bring JVR in here (he is a rangers fan)
and i think u can right this ship pretty quick if you make a few shrewd moves on the blueline.

I agree here. They should make a play for JVR, wonder if he would take a slight discount like Shatt did to play here. I don't like the idea of brining in Kovalchuk for 2 years at $6M on an over 35 contract.

Puck Head
04-23-2018, 11:54 AM
JVR will probably command 6+ per year for at least 6 years.

Not sure If I’d have any interest in that


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Fatfrancesa
04-23-2018, 12:24 PM
I just don’t see how Kovalchuk at 6m for 2 or 3 years is a better signing than Nash at the same. If the desired effect is to have a vet for the youth to look up to and learn from wouldn’t nash fit that bill better? Also Nash plays in all facets and plays a 200 foot game, Kovalchuk does not. I would rather have the youth learn from a player who backchecks and plays a responsible game rather than a guy who does not. I think the consensus here is that Kovalchuk is probably a 25 goal mid 50 pt guy. Nash isn’t far off from that at all and he brings so much more to the game. Add in the fact that he has no negative history, he not years removed from playing in the league, he’s younger I believe, and he’s already proven to be a true professional here. If the rangers need to acquire a player like Kovalchuk which is a fair argument then why wouldn’t nash be the better first choice?

Fatfrancesa
04-23-2018, 12:30 PM
No thank you to jvr. Players of his ilk who are not particularly great skaters don’t typically age well. He’d be good for a couple of years but 6 years is a huge problem. 3 to 4 years from now hopefully the rangers will have a problem signing all the young talent they picked up at this deadline and the draft. Jvr at 3-4 years sure but nothing more. And he’s not signing that unless he’s dead set on being a ranger.

josh
04-23-2018, 12:44 PM
I just don’t see how Kovalchuk at 6m for 2 or 3 years is a better signing than Nash at the same. If the desired effect is to have a vet for the youth to look up to and learn from wouldn’t nash fit that bill better? Also Nash plays in all facets and plays a 200 foot game, Kovalchuk does not. I would rather have the youth learn from a player who backchecks and plays a responsible game rather than a guy who does not. I think the consensus here is that Kovalchuk is probably a 25 goal mid 50 pt guy. Nash isn’t far off from that at all and he brings so much more to the game. Add in the fact that he has no negative history, he not years removed from playing in the league, he’s younger I believe, and he’s already proven to be a true professional here. If the rangers need to acquire a player like Kovalchuk which is a fair argument then why wouldn’t nash be the better first choice?

because we tried.

it didnt work out as planned.

Pete
04-23-2018, 01:50 PM
Nash is a massive injury risk.

He's one head injury away from retirement, I think.

torontonyr
04-23-2018, 01:53 PM
Add Kovy/Voynov/Tavares and possibly EK and this is one hell of a team, even with the subtractions to make it work

ThirtyONE
04-23-2018, 01:57 PM
There are a lot of people in Boston who are pissed at the Nash trade now that he's proven that he's simply not a playoff performer. I'm sure he's a good guy but like mentioned above, we've already been down that road. Why have him back?

Fatfrancesa
04-23-2018, 05:27 PM
There are a lot of people in Boston who are pissed at the Nash trade now that he's proven that he's simply not a playoff performer. I'm sure he's a good guy but like mentioned above, we've already been down that road. Why have him back?

Because I thought the idea was to bring in Kovalchuk to help mentor the youth while we rebuild. Wasn’t that the point everybody was making? Nash wouldn’t be a better fit if that was the idea?

It seems counterproductive to me to sign ufas to chase a cup at the same time you are rebuilding. I thought it was pretty universally agreed that the rebuild was the right thing here. Now trying to sign Kovalchuk, Tavares, voynov, jvr, etc doesn’t seem like anything new. That’s a ton of money locked up long term. It would also lead to more transactions to try to win now. I just don’t see you can have it both ways.

ThirtyONE
04-23-2018, 05:47 PM
Because I thought the idea was to bring in Kovalchuk to help mentor the youth while we rebuild. Wasn’t that the point everybody was making? Nash wouldn’t be a better fit if that was the idea?

It seems counterproductive to me to sign ufas to chase a cup at the same time you are rebuilding. I thought it was pretty universally agreed that the rebuild was the right thing here. Now trying to sign Kovalchuk, Tavares, voynov, jvr, etc doesn’t seem like anything new. That’s a ton of money locked up long term. It would also lead to more transactions to try to win now. I just don’t see you can have it both ways.

But Nash was already here. Grabner was already here. These are players that we've already been down that road with. What changes if they just come straight back? I don't think JVR is a good idea and hasn't been brought up anywhere other than here. Voynov is an unsubstantiated rumor. All signs point to the Rangers going young. Real young. They're looking at college coaches for god sake. I don't think you need to be worried about "same old Rangers."

This idea that Kovalchuk is a bad signing but Nash is a good signing just doesn't make sense to me. Why? Because Kovalchuk 35? Rick Nash will be 34. No one has suggested he's going to be the Kovalchuk of 6 years ago. The fact is he's one of the best Russian players in the game and we have a slew of Russian players soon-to-be transitioning. We have a team devoid of talent. And we have a team devoid of veteran leadership. We've seen the Rick Nash leadership role here already and it didn't work. In fact the leadership group has been called out. So... let's look elsewhere.

Fatfrancesa
04-23-2018, 06:31 PM
I don’t want Kovalchuk either. But looking to him for leadership because he’s old is foolish to me. I don’t want nash back but if the idea is you have to have vets to mentor I’d much rather have a guy who plays both ends of the ice rather than a guy who’s allergic to the defensive zone.

As far as him being here it be in a totally different situation before he was here to win a cup and failed miserably. Now it would be under no illusion of going all in on a cup but to groom the next core. I know he isn’t much of a leader but Kovalchuk is? Again I want neither.

I’m only responding to the prevailing thoughts that the rangers should in the opinion of others go after these high priced ufas at the same time as they rebuild. That is not realistic imo. Whether it’s because these ufas are going to want a team that’s trying to win now not in 5 years or because of the cap hits that will remain years down the line. Also it’s not likely if the rangers bring in vets with boat loads of money that they are going to stand pat with the opportunity to go for it. Meaning once again future is traded for now. Of course it’s all hypothetical and I don’t think this is the route the rangers are going. But that is what some are proposing and to me I don’t agree.

All these guys are fine players. We are a couple months into a rebuild. Let’s get young and build our next foundation. Next years ufa crop is probably the best since the cap was implemented. Some of those guys will resign but there will be pieces to sign next summer. Let’s keep our flexibility and see what we have.

Kovalchuk or nash is really not a big deal to me as long as it’s short. The guys seeking 5 plus years should be avoided. That’s just my opinion.

ThirtyONE
04-23-2018, 06:59 PM
I don’t want Kovalchuk either. But looking to him for leadership because he’s old is foolish to me. I don’t want nash back but if the idea is you have to have vets to mentor I’d much rather have a guy who plays both ends of the ice rather than a guy who’s allergic to the defensive zone.

As far as him being here it be in a totally different situation before he was here to win a cup and failed miserably. Now it would be under no illusion of going all in on a cup but to groom the next core. I know he isn’t much of a leader but Kovalchuk is? Again I want neither.

I’m only responding to the prevailing thoughts that the rangers should in the opinion of others go after these high priced ufas at the same time as they rebuild. That is not realistic imo. Whether it’s because these ufas are going to want a team that’s trying to win now not in 5 years or because of the cap hits that will remain years down the line. Also it’s not likely if the rangers bring in vets with boat loads of money that they are going to stand pat with the opportunity to go for it. Meaning once again future is traded for now. Of course it’s all hypothetical and I don’t think this is the route the rangers are going. But that is what some are proposing and to me I don’t agree.

All these guys are fine players. We are a couple months into a rebuild. Let’s get young and build our next foundation. Next years ufa crop is probably the best since the cap was implemented. Some of those guys will resign but there will be pieces to sign next summer. Let’s keep our flexibility and see what we have.

Kovalchuk or nash is really not a big deal to me as long as it’s short. The guys seeking 5 plus years should be avoided. That’s just my opinion.

I think it all boils down to this. Agreed 100%.

Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc
04-24-2018, 05:40 AM
I can already see it happening. We sign Kovy and some other UFA, starts the season really good and trades Howden, our 1st, Tampa's 2nd for EK on deadline day and gets tossed in the 1st round. (This is my ballsy bet for next season).

Fatfrancesa
04-25-2018, 07:11 AM
Off course you can see it. It’s standard practice for this team since I’ve been on this earth. That is my worry as well.

Rangers4Life
04-25-2018, 09:04 AM
That’s what worries me, I don’t believe this is a one year turnaround. Hopefully the front office feels the same way.

Pete
04-25-2018, 09:10 AM
I think there's alot in the sentence "we're trying to make the playoffs".

A healthy Kreider, Zib, Shatty and rebound from Skjei and Smith make this a playoff team if you sign JT and Hank has a good year.

Oddly the biggest challenge offensively would be replacing Grabner 25+ goals. Maybe you get that from Spooner...There's no way to replace Mac, however.

josh
04-25-2018, 09:23 AM
I think there's alot in the sentence "we're trying to make the playoffs".

A healthy Kreider, Zib, Shatty and rebound from Skjei and Smith make this a playoff team if you sign JT and Hank has a good year.

Oddly the biggest challenge offensively would be replacing Grabner 25+ goals. Maybe you get that from Spooner...There's no way to replace Mac, however.

Hopefully a better defensive system helps alleviate some of those issues, as well.

I think you expect to replace Grabners output with a combination of Andersson, Chytil coming in, Kreider and Zucc being healthy and more consistent, along with Buch "Not getting buried by that horrible gum chewing man" and suddenly plays a full games worth of hockey on a regular basis.

4EverRangerFrank
04-25-2018, 09:38 AM
^Amen

Giacomin
04-25-2018, 10:35 AM
Add Zib into the mix. Healthy, he could have his best year, yet. He and Kreider are keys.

Even with all that, plus contributions from the rookies, the Rangers still need a few things not on the current roster, to be taken seriously. Meaning as good a chance as the 9 teams alive today.
1. A righty on the top pair.
2. A LHD who can skate, move the puck well and is top 4 capable.
3. A top line scorer.

Sure there are other needs, like another gritty player, etc. Yet, these are the priorities, partly because they are not easily filled. Particularly items 1 and 3. Most importantly, it is because of the impact of these additions, up and down the lineup. Additionally, gritty play or leadership might be a characteristic of one of these players. These are long term personnel objectives, as well as immediate holes that need to be filled.

Slobberknocker
04-25-2018, 11:28 AM
i go back to the original subject line. if we didnt have the leadership last year, we certainly don't have it now.

there are three ways to get it.

1) hire a coach that has the pelts on his belt to be a leader

2) sign a stud and hopefully he has the leadership intangible. (Not sure JT or Kovy is that guy)

3) sign a few older vets with those traits who have been through the wars. Hold the fort guys who can be there until the leadership is developed from the youth.

Argue about Anderson all you want as to whether hes a 1c or 2c, but don't discount him throwing that medal. that was not petulance, that was a guy who dies to win and doesn't accept second best. Need about 5 more of those guys.

I'd hand the C to Zucc. over achiever and a guy who plays with as big of an edge as anyone we have on the roster.

Respecttheblue
04-25-2018, 11:47 AM
Leadership and intangibles may be important to a degree. But for a few bounces in the LAK/NYR Finals though, McDonough would have been a Stanley Cup captain. There was a point in that series had AV lost his shit about his goalie getting run, may be the refs take a harder look and things play out differently. In that a lack of leadership, or simply a coach not capable of handling strategy in the moment? And Messier, for all his leadership, could not get some lousy NYR teams into the playoffs in his second stint here. In 1997, NYR had Messier, Leetch, Graves and a bunch of 1994 vets and Wayne Gretzky and still couldn't get past the Lindros Flyers in an ECF. And if Messier doesn't score a hat trick late in game 6 vs. the Devils, is he still a great leader? Was that leadership or a great player being in the moment.

AV was a blasted fool to not be more hands on about the lockerroom. But you have to also understand talent matters. And all the leadership, chemistry and other such unmeasurables are sometimes things sportswriters tell us all about after the fact. Haven't heard of a losing team with great leadership and wonderful chemistry.

IMO, all the talent in the world is not gonna help in the playoffs if guys play like pu**ies, shy away from battles for contested pucks, and play like perimeter and/or fly-by players.

On the, flip side, I think you can have talent and go far, but the deeper you get in the playoffs, and the more you aspire to achieve, the more you need talent and grit/determination/character throughout the lineup. With few exceptions, few weak links, as the team with more of both those combined attributes wins the cup. A liberal sprinkling of talented gritty youth can help too, even if they lack experience. IMO.

On paper, what I said is really not rocket science, but it's very hard to achieve up and down the lineup. That team that battled the Kings in the finals they were an interesting blend. IMO we've regressed a bit since then, whether by injuries taking their toll, age, disinterest, and personnel moves.

And, of course, I forgot the elephant in the room. The salary cap woes that forced the organization's hand in who to keep and who to shed, and some questionable decisions and signings associated with that.

Giacomin
04-25-2018, 11:55 AM
if we didnt have the leadership last year, we certainly don't have it now.

there are three ways to get it.

1) hire a coach that has the pelts on his belt to be a leader

2) sign a stud and hopefully he has the leadership intangible. (Not sure JT or Kovy is that guy)

3) sign a few older vets with those traits who have been through the wars. Hold the fort guys who can be there until the leadership is developed from the youth.

Argue about Anderson all you want as to whether hes a 1c or 2c, but don't discount him throwing that medal. that was not petulance, that was a guy who dies to win and doesn't accept second best. Need about 5 more of those guys.

I'd hand the C to Zucc. over achiever and a guy who plays with as big of an edge as anyone we have on the roster.

The leadership needs to start from the top. Mgmt's next order of business is finding a coach who commands respect, is a clear/good communicator, proven developer of talent and demonstrates leadership skills and qualities. Sure a bunch of Cups does a lot of talking, but that's a rare bird. We'll have to find the next great coach among the talented pool of prospects. Interviews and player testimonials and research is what Mgmt should be focused on first. Next will be the draft and any draft week moves or trades.

Once we have a coach, know our draft position and make our selections/moves, then we can just begin to assess what we have and what direction(s) we are going. Plus, who the coach is and what he is looking for (like the kind of culture he wants to establish) carries weight. Stop-gaps may be a part of the leadership group, but long term solutions are necessary and need to be acquired or developed.

This feels more like a year for transition and establishing a solid foundation. It may take the coach and mgmt most of the year before knowing the entire picture, personnel-wise. This includes the team's outlook and personnel opportunities outside the organization.

jsrangers
04-25-2018, 12:07 PM
Off course you can see it. It’s standard practice for this team since I’ve been on this earth. That is my worry as well.

This. Until they prove it's truly changed it's a concern based on past seasons. Takes a big boy set of panties to avoid the urge to mortgage part of the future for a shot a the playoffs and winning a round or two- if that (more of the same). I don't think we'll know for sure until we pass the trade deadline next season to know whether the mindset and approach have truly changed.

josh
04-25-2018, 12:26 PM
i go back to the original subject line. if we didnt have the leadership last year, we certainly don't have it now.

there are three ways to get it.

1) hire a coach that has the pelts on his belt to be a leader

2) sign a stud and hopefully he has the leadership intangible. (Not sure JT or Kovy is that guy)

3) sign a few older vets with those traits who have been through the wars. Hold the fort guys who can be there until the leadership is developed from the youth.

Argue about Anderson all you want as to whether hes a 1c or 2c, but don't discount him throwing that medal. that was not petulance, that was a guy who dies to win and doesn't accept second best. Need about 5 more of those guys.

I'd hand the C to Zucc. over achiever and a guy who plays with as big of an edge as anyone we have on the roster.

I agree with most of this... not sure about Z getting the C, though, but that may depend on the coach.

I think JT or Kovy could be the guy. Both have worn letters at every level - and youve never heard a teammate complain about either.

Giacomin
04-25-2018, 12:28 PM
shy away from battles for contested pucks, and play like fly-by players.

That's hockey, that's sports. You have to compete. Coaches and mgmt must find and help players compete. If you are not battling for possession, you better be getting back and providing disruptive defense consistently. If you are not going inside then you better be distributing and/or scoring at a superior level. Without that we don't need you.


On the, flip side, I think you can have talent and go far, but the deeper you get in the playoffs, and the more you aspire to achieve, the more you need talent and grit/determination/character throughout the lineup. With few exceptions, few weak links, as the team with more of both those combined attributes wins the cup. A liberal sprinkling of talented gritty youth can help too, even if they lack experience. IMO.

Exactly. Balanced and complete teams playing determined outstanding hockey win Cups. Only 1 winner of 31, it's incredibly difficult.


On paper, what I said is really not rocket science, but it's very hard to achieve up and down the lineup. That team that battled the Kings in the finals they were an interesting blend. IMO we've regressed a bit since then, whether by injuries taking their toll, age, disinterest, and personnel moves.

And, of course, I forgot the elephant in the room. The salary cap woes that forced the organization's hand in who to keep and who to shed, and some questionable decisions and signings associated with that.

I'm guilty of looking forward currently, but there is reason for regressive analysis. We regressed for the reasons you mentioned and mishandled assets in so many ways. One thing to keep in mind is that we regret many of the UFA signings and trades for short term gains. We also regret poor decisions and returns on younger RFAs and FA's from bridge deals to not resigning Stralman, trading Hags for peanuts, not taking the 1st that was offered for Cam or what Anaheim was offering for G.

We need to learn from that shit. Adjust and not repeat the lessons from history in building a new stronger foundation. Boston, Toronto, and Winnipeg each have rebuilt a solid base in different ways.

That said, we need to stick with a 2-3 year plan. The fundamentals still do not change. Hire a good coach, acquire picks, draft and develop really well, get cap flexibility, be opportunistic and prepared to acquire talent, make solid hockey trades and go from there.

Pete
04-25-2018, 01:47 PM
Liars throwing the medal was a child having a tantrum. But that's okay, he's a child.

Puck Head
04-25-2018, 03:21 PM
I agree with most of this... not sure about Z getting the C, though, but that may depend on the coach.

I think JT or Kovy could be the guy. Both have worn letters at every level - and youve never heard a teammate complain about either.

JT would be a obvious choice, Kovalchuk if here, would be a short term signing. He bolted for the KHL 6 years ago? I’d be hesitant to proclaim him a NHL captain quite yet.

And wasn’t he stripped of his letter in the KHL ?


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Future
04-25-2018, 03:31 PM
How does anyone want JT to be a captain?

The Isles have been one of the most inconsistent teams - in terms of wins and effort - while he's been captain. Other than playing hard against the Rangers, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that NYI has or has ever had a strong leadership group in the last decade. I'd argue that making someone captain who comes from such a losing culture is far more likely to be toxic than beneficial.

josh
04-25-2018, 03:36 PM
JT would be a obvious choice, Kovalchuk if here, would be a short term signing. He bolted for the KHL 6 years ago? I’d be hesitant to proclaim him a NHL captain quite yet.

And wasn’t he stripped of his letter in the KHL ?


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Yup. Thought it was something to do with the owner being pissed that there were rumors of him returning to the NHL.

And I thought he got it back the following season. Who knows.

Still think he would be a good leader for some of the younger Russians coming up. Regardless of a letter on his jersey or not (which, I dont care about) I care about a leadership presence that's been lacking in the lockerroom

josh
04-25-2018, 03:37 PM
How does anyone want JT to be a captain?

The Isles have been one of the most inconsistent teams - in terms of wins and effort - while he's been captain. Other than playing hard against the Rangers, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that NYI has or has ever had a strong leadership group in the last decade. I'd argue that making someone captain who comes from such a losing culture is far more likely to be toxic than beneficial.

so we'll never see a captain again? JT, Karlsson, NY Rangers... all losing cultures right now

Phil in Absentia
04-25-2018, 03:39 PM
Kovalchuk has always been a strong leader and was well-respected in the room.

His leaving New Jersey was more about mutual benefit than him bailing. It's revisionist history to suggest the latter.

Just read this: https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/rangers-must-go-after-ilya-kovalchuk-who-isnt-who-you-think-he-is/


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Future
04-25-2018, 03:54 PM
so we'll never see a captain again? JT, Karlsson, NY Rangers... all losing cultures right now
This is 35 leaps away from what I said.

jsrangers
04-25-2018, 04:51 PM
Kovalchuk has always been a strong leader and was well-respected in the room.

His leaving New Jersey was more about mutual benefit than him bailing. It's revisionist history to suggest the latter.

Just read this: https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/rangers-must-go-after-ilya-kovalchuk-who-isnt-who-you-think-he-is/


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Phil with all do respect, regardless of the benefit to both he and the org he signed a long term deal and walked away, the intention when both signed wasn't for it to come apart so quickly. He's also as pointed out before is allergic to the defensive zone and that's as poor of a leader as you can find, forget about the fact he would be here on short term deal. Using the same theme giving Zucc the C makes no sense to me being he's going into the last year of his deal and could be moved at the deadline. To me what makes the most sense is to go without a C until someone steps up and actually earns it. IF Tavares were to sign here I wouldn't even give it to him when he walks in the door, does he get it at some point, odds are yes. There's no reason to have somewhere wear the C to start the season just because.

josh
04-25-2018, 05:03 PM
I think when most of us are discussing leadership moving forward, we are referring to the players, and not necessarily the letter on the jersey.

If the room is full of roll-overs like last season, yes, there will be a much bigger emphasis on the C, hence why some of the conversations have mentioned bringing in more than one players, along with a coach, in hopes to instill a new attitude.

Pete
04-25-2018, 05:08 PM
I don't think there will even be a C next year. New coach with new players is likely to go with the group that ended this year.

NYRangers723
04-25-2018, 05:28 PM
I don't think there will even be a C next year. New coach with new players is likely to go with the group that ended this year.

Probably the best thing. Do you think they will stick with 3 alternates?

jsrangers
04-25-2018, 06:58 PM
I agree with most of this... not sure about Z getting the C, though, but that may depend on the coach.

I think JT or Kovy could be the guy. Both have worn letters at every level - and youve never heard a teammate complain about either.

I'm confused now, it would appear you were talking about handing out letters here.

josh
04-25-2018, 07:26 PM
I'm confused now, it would appear you were talking about handing out letters here.

Obviously, the discussions will cross paths. I was replying to a post. And I don't see Zucc as a leader, so why wouldn't I address that in a reaponse?

torontonyr
04-26-2018, 09:19 AM
Phil with all do respect, regardless of the benefit to both he and the org he signed a long term deal and walked away, the intention when both signed wasn't for it to come apart so quickly. He's also as pointed out before is allergic to the defensive zone and that's as poor of a leader as you can find, forget about the fact he would be here on short term deal. Using the same theme giving Zucc the C makes no sense to me being he's going into the last year of his deal and could be moved at the deadline. To me what makes the most sense is to go without a C until someone steps up and actually earns it. IF Tavares were to sign here I wouldn't even give it to him when he walks in the door, does he get it at some point, odds are yes. There's no reason to have somewhere wear the C to start the season just because.

He walked away in the same way that Naslund, Klein, Drury and more "retired" for the Rangers and wound up with cushy jobs down the line. It was of mutual benefit in design.

Pete
04-26-2018, 11:15 AM
Except that the Rangers didn't give up a boatload in prospects to get any of those guys.

torontonyr
04-26-2018, 11:56 AM
Except that the Rangers didn't give up a boatload in prospects to get any of those guys.

Right. It's almost like they didn't anticipate a negative response to their circumvention in the next CBA and had to make a last min decision that was contextual to the situation they were in. But beside that, it was clearly orchestrated by design to pivot into an area of mutual benefit for both parties after running into their (again specific) obstacle, which could be construed as similar to the Rangers who saw players decline at a quicker rate than expected and worked out unique arrangements of comparable benefit.

Thanks Pete. You added a lot to this.

Pete
04-26-2018, 01:39 PM
Right. It's almost like they didn't anticipate a negative response to their circumvention in the next CBA and had to make a last min decision that was contextual to the situation they were in. But beside that, it was clearly orchestrated by design to pivot into an area of mutual benefit for both parties after running into their (again specific) obstacle, which could be construed as similar to the Rangers who saw players decline at a quicker rate than expected and worked out unique arrangements of comparable benefit.

Thanks Pete. You added a lot to this.

And despite the many words, you added nothing. The examples you gave for the Rangers are apples to monkey wrench comparisons.

jsrangers
04-26-2018, 09:58 PM
And despite the many words, you added nothing. The examples you gave for the Rangers are apples to monkey wrench comparisons.Yes sir, not even remotely close to the same thing.

Kovalchuk signed a 17 year deal and left after what 2 or 3 years. The guys that were mentioned left how many years early and were not in the "prime" of their careers?


Sent from my [device_name] using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk