Gravesy

4 hours ago, Valriera said:

Great series. You can only beat the team in front of you and we did just that. Now the team needs to enjoy the rest and hope Carolina gets beat up more by the isles. 

Yeah, I was just coming in to say this.

Really professional and a job well done.

Sure, this Caps team is about as bad a team you’ll ever face in the playoffs. The games weren’t played at proper playoff pace and ultimately we learned little from the series.

But historically the Rangers would always find a way to allow this to become a series. The fact they came in, did their jobs and swept the Caps without getting out of 2nd gear is a big positive for me. Tells you that their heads are screwed on right this time.

6 hours ago, Valriera said:

3 pts, hits, everything, amazing so far, keep it up kid

And came flying, I mean literally flying, in to Panarins aid after he took Oshie's head off. Magnifique.

7 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

He stinks. Ignore him. Keep swallowing offensive zone time. Score goals. They create as much off the rush as I do in the bedroom. Just keep it moving. Get your goals. Dust this team. They stink.

Yeah.

I'm well aware cashing in Ranger wins prematurely is fucking dumb, but the Caps are completely overmatched all over the ice, on special teams and goaltending. If they keep their heads they should dispatch this team with relative ease. 

Excellent start, thought it was a really professional performance by a clearly superior team.

1 hour ago, Bieser said:

I'd rather not play Tampa. 

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!"

7 hours ago, Pete said:

Disappointed with how far Roslovic fell off but agree it's looking like anyone in that position is suffering the same fate. 

 

Line needs a volume shooter and not someone who tries to "play off" the two of them. That, or split them up.

 

Cuylle Zib Roslovic

Kreider Wennberg Kakko 

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). 

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

I can't figure out why a team like Montreal would give up FOUR first round picks for this guy. That would set their team back decades, given that their latest first overall pick is not exactly lighting it up. 

They clearly won’t. That seems ludicrous.

14 hours ago, Pete said:

Nothing weird about it. Nobody has the ability to predict how many more points he'd have. You have some people here saying 15, another group saying 30.

 

It's weird to say no one (especially here) can predict the outcome of something that hasn't happened?

 

 

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.

12 hours ago, Pete said:

Great question. 

 

I know he doesn't get a lot of power play time, but he's very unimpressive on PP2. That's why I don't buy any argument that he have X many extra points if he got PP time. 

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 

6 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

It’s the Hockey News.

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. 

16 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

Vince mentions, as others have, the bad blood between the Rangers and Montreal front offices, thus making a deal for Monahan unlikely.

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. 

11 hours ago, Pete said:

You know why? Because he used to cover up all the problems, and now he can't cover up any problems.

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. 

57 minutes ago, Pete said:

If you don't have Goaltending, you don't have anything. 

 

It's the biggest problem on the team. People are complaining about P/G players like Zib, and picking apart their numbers, but we can't acknowledge a Vezina goalie performing league average as the main problem? Stop it.

 

And forget the numbers, watching the games, he gives up a ton of weak shit. 

 

On top of that...worst sv% when down by 2... He giving up or just can't take the pressure? That's been a knock on him for some time. @Drew a Penalty correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he a backup for his Russian team during playoffs?

 

Now look, he was stellar 2 years ago all through season and playoff. There's been an obvious regression.

 

Good player playing bad hockey. Bad Goaltending would and any teams biggest problem. 

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.

15 hours ago, Cash or Czech said:

Our xGA is 77.6 while our aGA is 85, a significant 7 goal upswing. Our team save % is .902% versus a league average of .898, so it may not be goaltending. We have a Scoring Chances For % of 50.9%, but a High Danger Chances For % of 48.5%, indicating that while we are driving play, we are letting our opponents have the bigger opportunities. We are also not converting our high danger chances as much as the rest of the league, 8.7% for us versus 9.5% for the league. 

 

We've been a team that has struggled to play team defense for years under a plethora of different head coaches with relatively the same core and team identity. We are icing almost exactly the same team, and expecting different results. We actually had different, better results when we were healthier. Then we lost Chytil, then Kakko, got back Fox...we just don't have the depth to make up for decent players. We're icing two fourth lines and our D remains unchanged despite being overall poor defenders.

 

It'd be nice to capture lightning in a bottle with Vezina Shesterkin while we are dealing with these injuries. He's good enough while we are at full health, and as long as we're at full health going into the post-season, that's probably good enough.

15 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

Right. “A problem”. Not “the real problem”.

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.

17 hours ago, Pete said:

17 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

It really depends on who you talk to.  I think they win without the trades in 93/94 and are better in the long run without the trades

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. 

21 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

Wow.

I feel like the only real difference is pucks that went in for him during his hot start aren’t at the moment. That is likely to revert to some form of median over the season. 
I thought he was visible and involved. No real issues with him at the moment bar end product.

Absolutely no reason to start knee jerking with that line. He hasn’t been as good, but he hasn’t been bad either. He’s set up Panarin for clean breakaways in the last two, but no end product. It happens.

I don’t see any need to move him unless he’s clearly an anchor, and we’re not there yet. We have bigger fish to fry in terms of getting the lines right too.

6 hours ago, Pete said:

6 hours ago, siddious said:

I just find it hard to fully blame the goalie when the defense was arguably worse. It’s not just this game it’s been a long stretch this season he’s just not keeping this team in it. Happened last year too. 

 

Yepp said this the other night. Inconsistenterkin.

The defense was worse? Stop it. He let in four goals that should have been stopped. He was dribbling rebounds right in front. The only goal that was unstoppable was the Matthew's to Marner tap in.

 

He fucking sucked.

Parts of column A, parts of column B. 

Igor was shit. 

But team defense has taken an absolute nosedive lately. We're back to the doldrums of Quinn and GG with guys just waving their sticks around, lack of aggression and assertiveness, puck watching, not cleaning out in front of our own net, breakdowns in structure. The works.

That doesn't excuse Igor letting softies in, but it's a massive problem that we shouldn't let go because there's an easy fall guy in the goalie.

Both aspects are deeply troubling to me. 

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

The hole in this thinking is that the Rangers have traded away a good amount of mid-round picks as well, including second and third rounders.

 

So even if you're first rounder amounts to the quality player you would draft in a middle round, it's still valuable to the Rangers who essentially don't have a lot of picks especially in 2025. 

 

Someone here posted that a good strategy might be to fire sale for young players instead of draft picks, I don't see that as a successful strategy. You're not going to get any players that a team holds in high regard, you're probably going to get their Kakko. A draft pick is a lottery ticket. A young player has already given you a taste of what they are or what they aren't. 

 

That said, I also completely understand that your team can't be in a state of perpetual rebuild and at some point you have to go all in. I'm just not sure if a guy like Tarasenko is a guy you go all in for, because you essentially already gave up a boatload for him last season... I don't know that you give up two first rounders plus for essentially half a season of Tarasenko. 

I'm not sure I make that deal for Tarasenko either.

My point is, if you buy the idea that this is a special team with a great chance if they get some help at the deadline, you simply cannot allow yourself to be held hostage by your previous actions. Yes, the cupboard is bare and they've given away too many draft assets. But this is not the time to start thinking about the future.

I understand that the bill comes due at some point, but you simply have to go for it if what we've seen so far keeps up. Teams like this doesn't come around all that often. 

22 minutes ago, Br4d said:

Also, counting your ducks 3 years up is very risky.  It's why the Rangers have the problems at RW that they have right now.  You can generally look at 3 years up the road.  You do that by preserving your high picks and hoping the ones you already made work out.  That doesn't help with positionality or balance or any of that stuff because you never know who is going to make it and who is going to wash out.

It won't be a high pick. It's at best in the mid 20's. Whoever you pick there is basically a 50/50 proposition. 

You don't sit around and preserve that with a cup run staring you in the face, if it can be used on someone who gives you a better chance of getting you over the line. 

I completely agree that the Rangers have been far too quick to give up their high picks in general, but if they keep this up it's a special team, with a great coach and probably their best chance in a very long time. They should not let history get in the way of that.

12 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

If the Rangers stay on course, I have no problem sacrificing a 1st for the right player at the deadline. This is a year to do it. The cupboard isn’t bare, Othmann is waiting in the wings, Perrault looks to be a player, we do have young talent. If a 1st would get someone like Tarasenko for 50%, I would certainly be open to it. 

This 100% the correct take. 
In historical terms I would’ve liked the Rangers to have a more balanced approach, take the future into consideration and not always be buyers with often marginal teams.

But with one of the best rosters in the league, performing like an elite unit, great coaching and goaltending you’re all in. All fucking in. These opportunities don’t come around too often. That’s even without considering we’re talking about an organization that hasn’t won in 30 years. If they find an addition that helps the team, handing over a 1st that’ll be in the late 20’s or worse is absolutely the correct thing to do.