Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

The Road to Contending and the Rebuild "On the Fly": What's Missing?


Recommended Posts

I’m already disappointed with how the Rangers PR staff are treating Kakko. The dude barely speaks English and they’re shoving the camera in his face asking him to say stupid shit. Just give it a rest. He’s clearly uncomfortable.

 

Like Francesca said, he’s 18 for god sake. Let the kid have a second to figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

St. Louis showed that you just need to be hot, get some puck luck at the right moments, and play as a unit to win it all. As soon as next season we could be doing the same.

 

 

I've seen this narrative show up a few times now. A couple of points here:

 

- St Louis didn't "get hot". Once they got their shit together they were the best team in the league, and that was over a span covering a third of the season. This wasn't a team that stumbled across the line and just made the playoffs. They were motoring by the time the playoffs came around and had been for a long time.

- What St Louis did was based on a big, heavy, veteran driven team playing extremely physical and perfectly executed shut down hockey.

 

I just don't get how Rangers fans can look at what the Blues did and think "if they can do it so can we". The Rangers have no Pietrangelo, Parayko, Gunnarsson or Bouwmeester. They have no O'Reilly, Tarasenko, Schenn, Schwartz, Steen or Barbashev. It's highly unlikely the Rangers will be entering the playoffs riding a wave of being the best team in the league for a prolonged period of time. They really don't have any of the ingredients that took the Blues to the Stanley Cup. What the Blues did isn't really indicative of anything the Rangers may or may not achieve next season as the two rosters are about as different as is possible when comparing two NHL teams.

 

I suppose if the idea is "get into the playoffs and anything can happen" then yeah, sure. I suppose that's true. Personally, I'm not expecting this team to seriously contend for at least another year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m already disappointed with how the Rangers PR staff are treating Kakko. The dude barely speaks English and they’re shoving the camera in his face asking him to say stupid shit. Just give it a rest. He’s clearly uncomfortable.

 

Like Francesca said, he’s 18 for god sake. Let the kid have a second to figure it out.

 

I don't disagree, but he's a top prospect. He's been a top prospect for almost two years now. He's been the star player on a top-tier Finnish team, working with former first rounders for a year.

 

The language barrier is a thing, but he's been prepped for the whirlwind. It'll calm down some after Dev Camp and he'll find his bearings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this narrative show up a few times now. A couple of points here:

 

- St Louis didn't "get hot". Once they got their shit together they were the best team in the league, and that was over a span covering a third of the season. This wasn't a team that stumbled across the line and just made the playoffs. They were motoring by the time the playoffs came around and had been for a long time.

- What St Louis did was based on a big, heavy, veteran driven team playing extremely physical and perfectly executed shut down hockey.

 

I just don't get how Rangers fans can look at what the Blues did and think "if they can do it so can we". The Rangers have no Pietrangelo, Parayko, Gunnarsson or Bouwmeester. They have no O'Reilly, Tarasenko, Schenn, Schwartz, Steen or Barbashev. It's highly unlikely the Rangers will be entering the playoffs riding a wave of being the best team in the league for a prolonged period of time. They really don't have any of the ingredients that took the Blues to the Stanley Cup. What the Blues did isn't really indicative of anything the Rangers may or may not achieve next season as the two rosters are about as different as is possible when comparing two NHL teams.

 

I suppose if the idea is "get into the playoffs and anything can happen" then yeah, sure. I suppose that's true. Personally, I'm not expecting this team to seriously contend for at least another year.

 

The Rangers don't have anyone on the level of Steen, Barbashev, Schenn, etc? You were making a good case up until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea. Just heard him referred to as a "top tier 2nd line talent" and the gap between him and Hughes will widen as Hughes develops physically.

 

I think you're referring to Cosetino's Chiclets interview - it was a weird thing to compare him to Getzlaf and then go "oh yeah, top tier 2nd liner"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're referring to Cosetino's Chiclets interview - it was a weird thing to compare him to Getzlaf and then go "oh yeah, top tier 2nd liner"
Yea.

 

I just saw that as a comparison of style, not production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still a lot of work to be done. Still think we are a good two years out. In looking at the organizational depth, on the surface i'm a bit more positive on what's in the blueline pipe than i am in with the forwards.

 

Said it before, take another year to develop and stock pile for next years draft, which is supposed to be deeper than this year's was.

 

for the moment, i'm really happy that there is a clear plan and for the first time in my 53 years on this earth, they are really trying to build a team ground up the right way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rangers don't have anyone on the level of Steen, Barbashev, Schenn, etc? You were making a good case up until then.

 

I didn't say that. I said (or at least, attempted to say) that they have no players of that type, capable of playing the same roles in the team.

Bar a fully healthy Fast I don't think there's anyone on the current Rangers roster I would expect to be able to play that style of game and do it as well as those guys.

The point being there is no reason to believe what the Blues did can be replicated by the Rangers, because the makeup of the roster and the style of play is so different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that. I said (or at least, attempted to say) that they have no players of that type, capable of playing the same roles in the team.

Bar a fully healthy Fast I don't think there's anyone on the current Rangers roster I would expect to be able to play that style of game and do it as well as those guys.

The point being there is no reason to believe what the Blues did can be replicated by the Rangers, because the makeup of the roster and the style of play is so different.

 

I tend to agree with your overall premise, if not the specific players mentioned.

 

I think a lot of people are going to look at STL and say "Well, anything can happen, just get in,"...And they'd be completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see which players from the Rangers roster one would think steps into their bottom 6 to replace guys like Barbashev and Steen. I'm not saying they're incredible players per se, but they are perfect fits for Berube's system. Or a Sammy Blais for that matter.

Again, not saying the Rangers have no players with a better overall skill set, just not the same type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so easy to talk up a team's pedestrian players like Steen and Barbashev after a Cup win. Steen with 55 hits is all of a sudden a hardnosed player. It's a fallacy. Half of their playoff wins were because Binnington stood on his head for those games, including Game 5 and 7 of the Cup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

St. Louis built a team with players slotted into specific roles that suited them and the team needs. They did it with depth up front and their foundation is defense, players and system. Tarensenko became the complimentary goal scorer that’s always a threat but their offense was made by a team wide hellacious forecheck. Of course goaltending was the missing piece. No need for $11-12m players. They built a team not a marketing strategy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so easy to talk up a team's pedestrian players like Steen and Barbashev after a Cup win. Steen with 55 hits is all of a sudden a hardnosed player. It's a fallacy. Half of their playoff wins were because Binnington stood on his head for those games, including Game 5 and 7 of the Cup.

 

That seems very simplistic, but if you think you could've replaced their bottom 6 with guys like Vesey, Namestnikov and Brett Howden and still win the cup playing that brand of hockey then I'd have to disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the thought out post here but I disagree with some of what was said.

 

Nobody should give a shit about Hank's "window" anymore. It's closed. The only cup he's going to win in NY is as a backup if at all. The Rangers are not, and should not, be operating with his longevity in mind.

 

Point two is NJ. We are not in an "arm's race" with NJ. They are 6 years into a rebuild and have been a dumpster fire for most of that time. If they're coming out of that phase, then good for them, but their activity has nothing to do with the Rangers.

 

Point three is that there is no rush. The Rangers will likely ice the youngest team in the NHL next season: meaning they will make a lot of mistakes, they will be frustrating at times, they will lose bad games, have bad goaltending, have poor scoring, make massive defensive blunders -- but it's all good. They will learn, and hopefully through experience, they will learn in the seasons ahead. As JD has said, it's a process. This will take lots of time. Some of the players that are here now, won't pan out or will be traded. The idea isn't to suddenly "go for it" but rather give yourself a 10-year span of playoffs and hopefully deep runs.

 

All good points (as are many in this thread). I should clarify: I mentioned in my post that I DO NOT think we should buy in to the Henrik window logic. Bit of a miscommunication there; I am flatly against selling our souls for a last ditch Hail Mary shot at glory for him. Agree 100% that, if such a window ever existed, it's long since closed.

 

Also, I am one of the most adamant supporters of the rebuild. Hell, I was strongly against giving up a first rounder for MSL (or acquiring him in general). I firmly believe that as assets age, we need to be selling them off and constantly repleneshing the system. I agree that the goal is to be competitive for the next decade, not the next two years. The only way to succeed in the cap era is by trading off aging talent once it becomes too expensive and building from within. To be clear: I am firmly against any Yandle/Eric Staal/MSL type trades. Anyone on this board can tell you that I'm a huge proponent of the rebuild. That's why I'm all about trading/shedding Kreider/Shatty/Staal.

 

This being said, all indications are that we plan to get back to winning ASAP (see McKenzie's opinion that we are "looking to get better in a hurry"). The point of this thread is: assuming our goal is to contend as soon as next season, what do you think we're missing? Because I do think that's what we're going for.

 

I agree that our foot should be off the gas pedal in the sense that I'm NOT trading futures for that "one last piece" ever again. That's a fallacy that lands you in hot water. If you have to add your star power at the trade deadline, that's a bad sign. What I don't believe, however, is that we shouldn't be going for it every year.

 

I don't buy in to the idea that we somehow need to "shelter" our younger players by not putting any expectations on them. In fact, I think that's an underestimation of their ability. If they're playing in the NHL they should be trying to win. It just seems silly to me that we would throw away an entire season, possibly two seasons, for the sake of taking it easy. This is the NHL, not a prospect camp or even the AHL. Expectations are a part of the business. If you don't want the fans to be leaning on you to win, you're in the wrong business. I think it's sending entirely the wrong message to plan on, essentially, tanking. In fact, to a certain extent I believe it is counter-productive to let them "get their feet wet" while they "figure things out." You want to push a winning culture, sooner than later.

 

This being said, I'm aware this team has many of the same flaws it had last year and that, if we're being realistic, we need A LOT of things to go right to even sniff at the playoffs. If it's apparent by December that we can't hang with the big boys, I am not in favor of trading Pavel Buchnevich and draft picks to try to remedy that situation. But in terms of adding star power, Panarin is the only option for now without giving anything other than money. Similarly, if Pavelski wants more than three years, which he will, my position is he can take a hike.

 

I'm not trying to mortgage the future. What I am saying though is that recent developments have changed the immediate outlook drastically. Imagine if someone else trades for Adam Fox. Imagine we move down in the draft lottery. Imagine we don't sign Krav and Shesty. Imagine if Philly or NJ beats us to the punch on Trouba (which there was a strong possibility of). At that point, we're having an entirely different conversation.

 

What I'm getting at is that we're poised to take a big step forward depending on how things shake out on July 1st. If we miss out on the big name free agents, so be it, we're no worse off than we were. But if you buy in to the idea that we're trying to contend as soon as possible, which the pundits seem to believe, the point of this thread is: what do you think we need to do it? Free agents cost money, not futures.

 

TL, DR: trying to contend and sticking to the rebuild are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so easy to talk up a team's pedestrian players like Steen and Barbashev after a Cup win. Steen with 55 hits is all of a sudden a hardnosed player. It's a fallacy. Half of their playoff wins were because Binnington stood on his head for those games, including Game 5 and 7 of the Cup.

 

That seems very simplistic, but if you think you could've replaced their bottom 6 with guys like Vesey, Namestnikov and Brett Howden and still win the cup playing that brand of hockey then I'd have to disagree with you.

 

Also Binnington was .914 goalie giving up 2 and a half goals a game. Hard to say they only won because he stood on his head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really find that people trying to explain team playoff success are trying to explain the outcome of a coin flip.

 

You aren't going to determine the best team in hockey in a 6 week tournament. You're going to determine that over the regular season. That should be obvious, but somehow it's not.

 

That's why it's important to just get in. Truly, anything can happen, this year should prove that beyond any doubt, but I'm sure it won't, people will continue to try to explain the outcome of the coin flip.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Binnington was .914 goalie giving up 2 and a half goals a game. Hard to say they only won because he stood on his head.

 

No question he had a handful of clunkers, which is why I didn't say he was the sole reason or that he carried them every game. But so many of their wins consisted of him playing at a ridiculous level, especially the times they needed a win most. The clunkers make the average look less spectacular.

 

But whatever. If people want to act like every single player on every Cup winning roster is irreplaceable they can. I'll just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question he had a handful of clunkers, which is why I didn't say he was the sole reason or that he carried them every game. But so many of their wins consisted of him playing at a ridiculous level, especially the times they needed a win most. The clunkers make the average look less spectacular.

 

But whatever. If people want to act like every single player on every Cup winning roster is irreplaceable they can. I'll just agree to disagree.

 

I don't think that. But I also don't think anyone we have in the bottom 6 is as good as STL bottom 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL, DR: trying to contend and sticking to the rebuild are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion.

 

I'd agree with most of this post if you substituted "competing ferociously and exceeding expectations" for "trying to contend"in the last sentence. When we're ready to contend, we're all going to know it based on how the team has coalesced and performed; not how a bunch of kids, including key members who have never played a single NHL game, look like they are supposed to perform on paper. The way it worked out at the end of the season - with Quinn saying fuck the tank we're going to try and win to the end, and then getting the 2nd pick despite having won the final game in OT to lose the 27th slot - was almost poetic. Both things have to go forward. Laserlike focus on building the winning Rangers culture and fully maximizing the development process (including revitalizing Hartford) will bring contention to MSG at the soonest possible moment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...