Gravesy

Yeah. I don't know much about them either, but when I read stuff like this it makes me highly skeptical, given we have a #1 and a #2 pick whose struggles are very closely linked to a lack of skating ability and speed. Obviously I'm not shitting on the pick or anything like that, just worried that yet again we've taken a first rounder with skating issues.

He was definitely not as hyped as Dahlin. Dahlin was seen as a generational d prospect. I’m pretty sure Pronman had Laf behind Hughes in the same article from Lafs draft year.

It’s a bit of a wonky list. He has bedard in 2nd or third and he’s not even in the nhl yet lol It’s a ranking of them as prospects, not how good they are now.

Maybe my irony detector is off, but surely you're joking.

Of course. Getting a functional if underwhelming 3rd liner is obviously far better than getting what in essence is nothing for the pick. I would have thought it’s obvious that wasn’t my point though. My point was simply that, if you look at the forwards on the board at the time it’s a distinctly meh group. Like I said, a horrific scouting job and I’m not defending the pick, just stating that it’s not as if the Rangers reached on Kravtsov in a position where they had their pick of a bunch of talented forwards. On Wahlstrom, he hasn’t been able to stay on the ice and his best season is 24 points. Again, would rather him than Kravtsov, but in reality he’s done nothing and I’m fairly certain Rangers fans would be quite far from “damn happy” with what he’s been able to do so far.

Maybe we’ve been watching different games, but I’m pretty sure no one would be “damn happy“ with Wahlstrom and what he’s been able to do so far.

Well yeah, like I said, the Rangers set fire to their pick. Most of that list would have been better selections. However, it’s not a great list of prospects. Iirc D was basically not in the conversation. I wanted Wahlstrom too and was fucking seething when they passed on him, but he’s completely underwhelming too. Obviously he’s here and playing which in and of itself is a huge upgrade on Kravtsov. Not defending the pick at all, just saying that part of the draft wasn’t particularly strong in terms of forwards.

Now, in fairness, in hindsight where the Rangers took Kravtsov wasn’t a great place to pick. 1 9 NY Rangers Vitali Kravtsov 1 10 Edmonton Evan Bouchard 1 11 NY Islanders Oliver Wahlstrom 1 12 NY Islanders Noah Dobson 1 13 Dallas Ty Dellandrea 1 14 Philadelphia Joel Farabee 1 15 Florida Grigori Denisenko 1 16 Colorado Martin Kaut 1 17 New Jersey Ty Smith 1 18 Columbus Liam Foudy 1 19 Philadelphia Jay O'Brien 1 20 Los Angeles Rasmus Kupari 1 21 San Jose Ryan Merkley Obviously the Rangers set fire to their pick, but that’s not a who’s who of guys tearing up the league.

It very much looks like a bit from column A and a bit from column B. In fact, very little appears to have been done well with these two. They were reaches in the draft. They evidently weren't handled well once they got here. Both showed themselves as bad character picks. Andersson probably not cut out for life in the NHL, Kravtsov being a massive diva. And ultimately, even as reaches, they turned out to be completely underwhelming as players. They would both have been egregious uses of late 1sts, never mind top 10 picks. Just a brutal scouting job all round.

You probably don’t want that. BUT, I think someone with a bit of Keenan in them wouldn’t necessarily be the worst thing for this group. Someone who will fucking sit you if you’re horsing around, committing bad turnovers, is sailing around out there or not doing what the system tells you to do. And will do it regardless of what name is on your back. I honestly think that’s more important than track record. Someone who will hold privileged veterans accountable and isn’t afraid of it. You want to play? Do your fucking job. I realise this is simplistic and a bit dumb, but after the last 4 or 5 years I think it’s needed. Edit different takes there @Sod16 You might be right

Why on earth should I look at Jack Hughes? It's as relevant as looking at Connor McDavid. Those guys are elite players. Lafreniere isn't in Hughes stratosphere, so the comparisons of the two are a complete waste of oxygen at this point. Also, I never said anything to the effect of "the difference is pp time". They are an ocean apart. You need to let it go and look at him for what he is. Not a 1st OA. Not someone who was supposed to be franchise altering. Just a 21 year old middle of the lineup player who produces OK for where he is. The entire point is, until someone comes up with a trade scenario that represents real, tangible value, I think the best way forward is to keep him at a low cost. That's it.

I mean, maybe my timeline is off here. But as I recall, he got some time on PP1 and did ok as a net front presence. It was a short period though, and was done as a project when Kane arrived? Like I've said, I'm not trying to white knight for Lafreniere. I agree with most if not all of the criticism. I'm just not entirely sure there's great value to be had in trading him at this point. And, for now and to the contrary, the value play for me seems to be keeping him around at a low cost. You can scoff at the 40 point thing all you want, but it's still 40 points, from a 21 year old, playing predominantly on the 3rd line with similarly disappointing young players and minimal PP time. If he can do that, with all his flaws, I'm not yet willing to accept there isn't a 50+ point upside there - however small you want to say the chance of that upside becoming reality is. That is until someone shows me a trade scenario that I like. If there's real value to be had from trading him I wouldn't be against it. But I have a hard time seeing it.

Of course you can, provided a) he's willing to accept a deal in line with his play and b) the return in a potential trade isn't in line with his draft pedigree Is it though? I'm not sure the league is full of pending UFA's who can put up 40-50 on the 3rd line for +- 2.5 aav. Look, I don't really disagree with your assessment of him, it's just that I'm really not sure there's value in trading him just to get rid vs keeping him at a low cost with the 10% chance he's a 50 point guy when fully developed. If he can get me a legit mid 6 RW who fits under the cap I'm all ears, don't get me wrong.

I don't really disagree with this, but for now I try to look at this way: If you completely remove yourself from the fact he was #1OA, billed as a franchise altering player and the crushing disappointment that ensued, a 21 year old player coming off a 40 point season feels like someone we might want to keep around. He did that with no PP time to speak of and with line mates who, let's be fair, are varying degrees of disappointments themselves. If - and this is the caveat - he's willing to be paid in line with what he is and not his draft stock - I'm not really sure what's in it for the Rangers to cut ties, unless someone is willing to give you a real and significant upgrade at RW.

I just don't think he gives you anything in return that changes much if anything at all. I'm leaning towards paying him for what he is and just hope against all available evidence that he's some sort of late bloomer. What can you realistically hope to get in a trade? You're certainly not getting an established player that makes a real difference to this roster.

Yeah, it really isn't apples to apples. I don't disagree that you might get someone to give up a high pick for Laffy, but I'd be absolutely shocked if someone gave up a functional, goal scoring top 6 winger who isn't old and with a bit of bite to his game. The shine is well and truly off.

You're not getting that for Lafreniere in a month of Sundays. We're dangerously close to "my failing prospect for your failing prospect" territory here.

There's a couple of posts in the match thread around the time the game was over/winding down. Narrative might be a bit strong, but I saw it there, it was mentioned on the broadcast and some fool on the Athletic wrote words to that effect as well.

Already seen it both here and in the open world.

Lafreniere was dog poo. But so was the rest of the young players. If Kakko, Chytil or Miller were any better it was fucking marginal. A huge come down from everyone compared to last playoffs. Schneider I guess gets a pass for mostly doing his job adequately. Edit before someone comes after me, this is not a defense of #13. It's more a cry of despair because I really can't see it from any of them.

They got out of some holes last playoff run, so this might not be entirely fair. But this years iteration of the team felt like a bunch of fair-weather fannies. Things going your way? Swell. Pump them for 5. A bit of adversity? Fucking turtle up and get dry humped. I agree with you, Shesterkin was excellent. The narrative will be that he too lost his matchup with Schmid,but that seems really unfair. One goalie had to stand on his head. The other played really well, but wasn't made to work anywhere near as hard for his saves.

That's the most worrying thing for me. The Rangers looked old, slow and lethargic, and in the 4 games they lost genuinely looked like they simply couldn't keep up with the Devils speed. I don't want to be too knee jerk, after all this core got close to the SC final last season. But it feels like change has to come, and it'll require more surgery than canning the coach. Panarin feels like they key cog, but it's hard to see how they move on from him without paying through the nose to do it. It feels very much like Gorton and Drury have locked us into this iteration of the team for now. Sure, you could move Goodrow and Laf/Kakko, but that doesn't feel like nearly enough to move the needle.

Don't think Chytil or Kakko have been much better, if better at all tbh. Not that it helps.

Not going to lie, that looks like aids on ice.