Phil Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 I hate to agree with anything Dolan says, but... I agree. I think it was a mistake. He was too young, not enough experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 19, 2018 Author Share Posted April 19, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillyb Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew a Penalty Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4EverRangerFrank Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 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.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty9 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 fucking Av,let these players run the show behind-the-scenes even thou the team had no leadership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddynyc Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 “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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I'm not mad at bringing in under 30 stars, just don't trade for Karlsson. Wait till next summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Hell, bring fucking Doughty in here and give him the C. The dude is a monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillyb Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I think I'd actually hate having Doughty here. We don't play the Flames often enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 The Sens have ZERO leverage here (which is why clauses are dumb). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 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, 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.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.