Gravesy

It's this. Grizzled vet team, more experience than anyone in terms of what it takes to win in the playoffs, and Kucherov on absolute fire. I'd still have the Rangers as clear favorites and I don't really fear anyone, but I expect Tampa to make a series out of it against whoever they get. The other teams we could get I really don't see doing that.

When Zib scored his 2nd a Sam voice popped up in my head and said "MIKA ZIBANEJAD - IT'S A 5V5 GOAL!"

I'd like to see that too. However, I think some of this is looking at that line as our 1st line the way it used to be. If you look at it as the 2nd line, you have a 2C with around 70 points and a 2LW on 40 goals whilst handling consistently tough matchups. Granted, it's heavily PP driven and you'd like to see them do more 5v5. But given you have a 1st line firing on all cylinders that's probably not disastrous for a 2nd line compared to the rest of the league (I haven't actually checked this).

They clearly won’t. That seems ludicrous.

I mean, that's fair, but that's not really what you've been arguing in this thread is it. Unless I'm grossly misremembering (apologies if so, can't be bothered reading back) your angle has pretty consistently been to cast doubt about whether PP1 time would significantly improve his production. I agree there's a range of outcomes in terms of how much it would be increased and nobody can say for certain, but unless you think he's so bad that his mere presence on PP1 would completely tank the unit something in the 10-20 range is an absolute given.

This is such a strange take. Clearly, being on pp1 and pp2 is a completely different proposition. He’d have 15 more points merely by being alive and able to hold on to his stick. As it happens he’s a very good passer, good in front of the net and has a sneaky good shot on him. Of fucking course he’d be racking up points playing on pp1 with Fox, Zib, Panarin +1. It’s an absolute given. Of course, none of those 5 deserve to lose their spot, and as good as Lafreniere’s been there’s no real reason to shoe horn him in there. But the idea that regular pp1 time wouldn’t significantly boost Lafreniere’s production is a super weird hill to die on.

Kaapo O’Kakko

But it’s also the Buffalo Sabres.

My only problem with this is the wording really. "The Rangers taking calls on Kakko" reads as if they're seeing what they can get, with a view of getting rid of him I presume to regain some assets and recoup cap space. I don't like the sound of that. "The Rangers actively using Kakko as a trade chip" sounds much better to me, i.e. we're willing to use Kakko in a deal to get someone who improves the team immediately.

Is this really a thing? Genuine question. I could see it if there's a situation where the Rangers and another team have more or less the same offer on the table, and Gorton chooses not to do business with the Rangers. But if the Rangers have the best offer surely he has to take it? He's GM'ing that team on behalf of owners and a team president. Surely he can't refuse to take the best offer on the table on the grounds that "they were mean to me".

So last night you have two redirections from in close. That's not on the goalie. The 4th goal is a microcosm of this team and why blaming goaltending is wide of the mark: Barbashev crosses our blueline, our D is backing into Shesterkin instead of challenging and he's free to take his shot. Shesterkin saves and, somehow, Barbashev is allowed to get on his own rebound. The rebound ricochets off the boards and straight back out and the New York Rangers are beaten to the puck for the 3rd time in a space of like 5 seconds, leaving Marchessault with an empty netter. You can blame goaltending if you want to, but you're looking in the wrong place. Even if, like I've said, Shesty is having a down year. I think that's a pretty good way of putting it though. This team has no chance to go deep in the playoffs unless Shesty stands on his head.

These last couple of pages: Fwiw, both sides have a point. You can't really make the case to drop anyone currently on PP1 for him. The idea that he doesn't have the skillset to produce on the PP is pretty ridiculous and unfounded.

Well, I just don't agree that good goaltending fixes this team. It doesn't matter if you have the love child of Hasek and Roy in net with the team defense currently on display. Like I said, would a peak Igor help? Yes. Would he maybe even steal a couple of games? Again yes. But you're not doing shit in the playoffs if you play defense as a team the way they've played lately. The Vancouver game, for example. It doesn't matter how good the goalie is, if you give NHL players the that type of time and space in and around the crease goaltending can only take you so far. So yeah, I fully agree with the criticism of Shesterkin, I just think he's one of several issues rather than the issue.

It's these. I don't buy the idea that Igor is "the real issue". He's very clearly not playing at his Vezina best, and he's not winning us games, and that's one of many issues. Over the last few weeks, the goalies have been hung out to dry by absolutely hideous team defense. There's only so much a goalie can do when you continuously let the best players in the world take free shots from the slot, whack away to or three times on rebounds, stickhandle unchallenged around the crease and come in on multiple odd man rushes and breakaways. Yeah, an Igor at his best makes some of the saves he hasn't made lately. And he might even steal a couple of the games we've lost. But relying on goaltending to steal games is not a viable strategy. This is not a defense of Igor in any way, because he's unquestionably not anywhere near his best, but I think describing him as "the" issue is missing the forest for the trees.

They didn't need MacT or Anderson. I'd argue Matteau/Noonan were pretty important players. Yeah, it's impossible to be confident either way of course. We have to look at those trades in context of the league that year. Two teams were the class of the league; the Rangers and the Devils. The points difference in the regular season, I believe, was simply that the Rangers won all head to heads with the Devils. But they were tough, physical, even games. The feeling in the room at the time was that, for the Rangers, the cup went through the Devils. They knew they would have to beat them, and they knew that series would be total war both physically and mentally. So Keenan was absolutely adamant that they needed battled hardened, grizzled veterans and tough guys who could deal with what was to come. I mean, who knows. Maybe if they keep Amonte and Gartner they skate rings around the Devils and just outscore them. But, whatever you think of the trades, you have to say their idea of what that series was going to be like certainly came true. The Gartner for Anderson trade obviously looks brutal and the McT trade not much better. I don't think it's crazy to suggest those guys were important dressing room guys considering everything the Rangers have to go through to finally break the curse. Although the counter argument to that is that they already had a really strong leadership group. We'll never know if they win without the trades or not, but they certainly left them in a worse position in the long run. Whatever you think, it was worth it though.