[brooks] Dolan: "I don?t think we had great leadership last year"

[Pete]

Nash is a massive injury risk.

 

He's one head injury away from retirement, I think.

[torontonyr]

Add Kovy/Voynov/Tavares and possibly EK and this is one hell of a team, even with the subtractions to make it work

[ThirtyONE]

There are a lot of people in Boston who are pissed at the Nash trade now that he's proven that he's simply not a playoff performer. I'm sure he's a good guy but like mentioned above, we've already been down that road. Why have him back?

[Fatfrancesa]

There are a lot of people in Boston who are pissed at the Nash trade now that he's proven that he's simply not a playoff performer. I'm sure he's a good guy but like mentioned above, we've already been down that road. Why have him back?

 

Because I thought the idea was to bring in Kovalchuk to help mentor the youth while we rebuild. Wasn’t that the point everybody was making? Nash wouldn’t be a better fit if that was the idea?

 

It seems counterproductive to me to sign ufas to chase a cup at the same time you are rebuilding. I thought it was pretty universally agreed that the rebuild was the right thing here. Now trying to sign Kovalchuk, Tavares, voynov, jvr, etc doesn’t seem like anything new. That’s a ton of money locked up long term. It would also lead to more transactions to try to win now. I just don’t see you can have it both ways.

[ThirtyONE]

Because I thought the idea was to bring in Kovalchuk to help mentor the youth while we rebuild. Wasn’t that the point everybody was making? Nash wouldn’t be a better fit if that was the idea?

 

It seems counterproductive to me to sign ufas to chase a cup at the same time you are rebuilding. I thought it was pretty universally agreed that the rebuild was the right thing here. Now trying to sign Kovalchuk, Tavares, voynov, jvr, etc doesn’t seem like anything new. That’s a ton of money locked up long term. It would also lead to more transactions to try to win now. I just don’t see you can have it both ways.

 

But Nash was already here. Grabner was already here. These are players that we've already been down that road with. What changes if they just come straight back? I don't think JVR is a good idea and hasn't been brought up anywhere other than here. Voynov is an unsubstantiated rumor. All signs point to the Rangers going young. Real young. They're looking at college coaches for god sake. I don't think you need to be worried about "same old Rangers."

 

This idea that Kovalchuk is a bad signing but Nash is a good signing just doesn't make sense to me. Why? Because Kovalchuk 35? Rick Nash will be 34. No one has suggested he's going to be the Kovalchuk of 6 years ago. The fact is he's one of the best Russian players in the game and we have a slew of Russian players soon-to-be transitioning. We have a team devoid of talent. And we have a team devoid of veteran leadership. We've seen the Rick Nash leadership role here already and it didn't work. In fact the leadership group has been called out. So... let's look elsewhere.

[Fatfrancesa]

I don’t want Kovalchuk either. But looking to him for leadership because he’s old is foolish to me. I don’t want nash back but if the idea is you have to have vets to mentor I’d much rather have a guy who plays both ends of the ice rather than a guy who’s allergic to the defensive zone.

 

As far as him being here it be in a totally different situation before he was here to win a cup and failed miserably. Now it would be under no illusion of going all in on a cup but to groom the next core. I know he isn’t much of a leader but Kovalchuk is? Again I want neither.

 

I’m only responding to the prevailing thoughts that the rangers should in the opinion of others go after these high priced ufas at the same time as they rebuild. That is not realistic imo. Whether it’s because these ufas are going to want a team that’s trying to win now not in 5 years or because of the cap hits that will remain years down the line. Also it’s not likely if the rangers bring in vets with boat loads of money that they are going to stand pat with the opportunity to go for it. Meaning once again future is traded for now. Of course it’s all hypothetical and I don’t think this is the route the rangers are going. But that is what some are proposing and to me I don’t agree.

 

All these guys are fine players. We are a couple months into a rebuild. Let’s get young and build our next foundation. Next years ufa crop is probably the best since the cap was implemented. Some of those guys will resign but there will be pieces to sign next summer. Let’s keep our flexibility and see what we have.

 

Kovalchuk or nash is really not a big deal to me as long as it’s short. The guys seeking 5 plus years should be avoided. That’s just my opinion.

[ThirtyONE]

I don’t want Kovalchuk either. But looking to him for leadership because he’s old is foolish to me. I don’t want nash back but if the idea is you have to have vets to mentor I’d much rather have a guy who plays both ends of the ice rather than a guy who’s allergic to the defensive zone.

 

As far as him being here it be in a totally different situation before he was here to win a cup and failed miserably. Now it would be under no illusion of going all in on a cup but to groom the next core. I know he isn’t much of a leader but Kovalchuk is? Again I want neither.

 

I’m only responding to the prevailing thoughts that the rangers should in the opinion of others go after these high priced ufas at the same time as they rebuild. That is not realistic imo. Whether it’s because these ufas are going to want a team that’s trying to win now not in 5 years or because of the cap hits that will remain years down the line. Also it’s not likely if the rangers bring in vets with boat loads of money that they are going to stand pat with the opportunity to go for it. Meaning once again future is traded for now. Of course it’s all hypothetical and I don’t think this is the route the rangers are going. But that is what some are proposing and to me I don’t agree.

 

All these guys are fine players. We are a couple months into a rebuild. Let’s get young and build our next foundation. Next years ufa crop is probably the best since the cap was implemented. Some of those guys will resign but there will be pieces to sign next summer. Let’s keep our flexibility and see what we have.

 

Kovalchuk or nash is really not a big deal to me as long as it’s short. The guys seeking 5 plus years should be avoided. That’s just my opinion.

 

I think it all boils down to this. Agreed 100%.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

I can already see it happening. We sign Kovy and some other UFA, starts the season really good and trades Howden, our 1st, Tampa's 2nd for EK on deadline day and gets tossed in the 1st round. (This is my ballsy bet for next season).

[Fatfrancesa]

Off course you can see it. It’s standard practice for this team since I’ve been on this earth. That is my worry as well.

[Rangers4Life]

That?s what worries me, I don?t believe this is a one year turnaround. Hopefully the front office feels the same way.

[Pete]

I think there's alot in the sentence "we're trying to make the playoffs".

 

A healthy Kreider, Zib, Shatty and rebound from Skjei and Smith make this a playoff team if you sign JT and Hank has a good year.

 

Oddly the biggest challenge offensively would be replacing Grabner 25+ goals. Maybe you get that from Spooner...There's no way to replace Mac, however.

[josh]

I think there's alot in the sentence "we're trying to make the playoffs".

 

A healthy Kreider, Zib, Shatty and rebound from Skjei and Smith make this a playoff team if you sign JT and Hank has a good year.

 

Oddly the biggest challenge offensively would be replacing Grabner 25+ goals. Maybe you get that from Spooner...There's no way to replace Mac, however.

 

Hopefully a better defensive system helps alleviate some of those issues, as well.

 

I think you expect to replace Grabners output with a combination of Andersson, Chytil coming in, Kreider and Zucc being healthy and more consistent, along with Buch "Not getting buried by that horrible gum chewing man" and suddenly plays a full games worth of hockey on a regular basis.

[4EverRangerFrank]

^Amen

[Giacomin]

Add Zib into the mix. Healthy, he could have his best year, yet. He and Kreider are keys.

 

Even with all that, plus contributions from the rookies, the Rangers still need a few things not on the current roster, to be taken seriously. Meaning as good a chance as the 9 teams alive today.

1. A righty on the top pair.

2. A LHD who can skate, move the puck well and is top 4 capable.

3. A top line scorer.

 

Sure there are other needs, like another gritty player, etc. Yet, these are the priorities, partly because they are not easily filled. Particularly items 1 and 3. Most importantly, it is because of the impact of these additions, up and down the lineup. Additionally, gritty play or leadership might be a characteristic of one of these players. These are long term personnel objectives, as well as immediate holes that need to be filled.

[Slobberknocker]

i go back to the original subject line. if we didnt have the leadership last year, we certainly don't have it now.

 

there are three ways to get it.

 

1) hire a coach that has the pelts on his belt to be a leader

 

2) sign a stud and hopefully he has the leadership intangible. (Not sure JT or Kovy is that guy)

 

3) sign a few older vets with those traits who have been through the wars. Hold the fort guys who can be there until the leadership is developed from the youth.

 

Argue about Anderson all you want as to whether hes a 1c or 2c, but don't discount him throwing that medal. that was not petulance, that was a guy who dies to win and doesn't accept second best. Need about 5 more of those guys.

 

I'd hand the C to Zucc. over achiever and a guy who plays with as big of an edge as anyone we have on the roster.

[Respecttheblue]

Leadership and intangibles may be important to a degree. But for a few bounces in the LAK/NYR Finals though, McDonough would have been a Stanley Cup captain. There was a point in that series had AV lost his shit about his goalie getting run, may be the refs take a harder look and things play out differently. In that a lack of leadership, or simply a coach not capable of handling strategy in the moment? And Messier, for all his leadership, could not get some lousy NYR teams into the playoffs in his second stint here. In 1997, NYR had Messier, Leetch, Graves and a bunch of 1994 vets and Wayne Gretzky and still couldn't get past the Lindros Flyers in an ECF. And if Messier doesn't score a hat trick late in game 6 vs. the Devils, is he still a great leader? Was that leadership or a great player being in the moment.

 

AV was a blasted fool to not be more hands on about the lockerroom. But you have to also understand talent matters. And all the leadership, chemistry and other such unmeasurables are sometimes things sportswriters tell us all about after the fact. Haven't heard of a losing team with great leadership and wonderful chemistry.

 

IMO, all the talent in the world is not gonna help in the playoffs if guys play like pu**ies, shy away from battles for contested pucks, and play like perimeter and/or fly-by players.

 

On the, flip side, I think you can have talent and go far, but the deeper you get in the playoffs, and the more you aspire to achieve, the more you need talent and grit/determination/character throughout the lineup. With few exceptions, few weak links, as the team with more of both those combined attributes wins the cup. A liberal sprinkling of talented gritty youth can help too, even if they lack experience. IMO.

 

On paper, what I said is really not rocket science, but it's very hard to achieve up and down the lineup. That team that battled the Kings in the finals they were an interesting blend. IMO we've regressed a bit since then, whether by injuries taking their toll, age, disinterest, and personnel moves.

 

And, of course, I forgot the elephant in the room. The salary cap woes that forced the organization's hand in who to keep and who to shed, and some questionable decisions and signings associated with that.

[Giacomin]

if we didnt have the leadership last year, we certainly don't have it now.

 

there are three ways to get it.

 

1) hire a coach that has the pelts on his belt to be a leader

 

2) sign a stud and hopefully he has the leadership intangible. (Not sure JT or Kovy is that guy)

 

3) sign a few older vets with those traits who have been through the wars. Hold the fort guys who can be there until the leadership is developed from the youth.

 

Argue about Anderson all you want as to whether hes a 1c or 2c, but don't discount him throwing that medal. that was not petulance, that was a guy who dies to win and doesn't accept second best. Need about 5 more of those guys.

 

I'd hand the C to Zucc. over achiever and a guy who plays with as big of an edge as anyone we have on the roster.

 

The leadership needs to start from the top. Mgmt's next order of business is finding a coach who commands respect, is a clear/good communicator, proven developer of talent and demonstrates leadership skills and qualities. Sure a bunch of Cups does a lot of talking, but that's a rare bird. We'll have to find the next great coach among the talented pool of prospects. Interviews and player testimonials and research is what Mgmt should be focused on first. Next will be the draft and any draft week moves or trades.

 

Once we have a coach, know our draft position and make our selections/moves, then we can just begin to assess what we have and what direction(s) we are going. Plus, who the coach is and what he is looking for (like the kind of culture he wants to establish) carries weight. Stop-gaps may be a part of the leadership group, but long term solutions are necessary and need to be acquired or developed.

 

This feels more like a year for transition and establishing a solid foundation. It may take the coach and mgmt most of the year before knowing the entire picture, personnel-wise. This includes the team's outlook and personnel opportunities outside the organization.

[Scott]

Off course you can see it. It’s standard practice for this team since I’ve been on this earth. That is my worry as well.

 

This. Until they prove it's truly changed it's a concern based on past seasons. Takes a big boy set of panties to avoid the urge to mortgage part of the future for a shot a the playoffs and winning a round or two- if that (more of the same). I don't think we'll know for sure until we pass the trade deadline next season to know whether the mindset and approach have truly changed.

[josh]

i go back to the original subject line. if we didnt have the leadership last year, we certainly don't have it now.

 

there are three ways to get it.

 

1) hire a coach that has the pelts on his belt to be a leader

 

2) sign a stud and hopefully he has the leadership intangible. (Not sure JT or Kovy is that guy)

 

3) sign a few older vets with those traits who have been through the wars. Hold the fort guys who can be there until the leadership is developed from the youth.

 

Argue about Anderson all you want as to whether hes a 1c or 2c, but don't discount him throwing that medal. that was not petulance, that was a guy who dies to win and doesn't accept second best. Need about 5 more of those guys.

 

I'd hand the C to Zucc. over achiever and a guy who plays with as big of an edge as anyone we have on the roster.

 

I agree with most of this... not sure about Z getting the C, though, but that may depend on the coach.

 

I think JT or Kovy could be the guy. Both have worn letters at every level - and youve never heard a teammate complain about either.

[Giacomin]

shy away from battles for contested pucks, and play like fly-by players.

 

That's hockey, that's sports. You have to compete. Coaches and mgmt must find and help players compete. If you are not battling for possession, you better be getting back and providing disruptive defense consistently. If you are not going inside then you better be distributing and/or scoring at a superior level. Without that we don't need you.

 

On the, flip side, I think you can have talent and go far, but the deeper you get in the playoffs, and the more you aspire to achieve, the more you need talent and grit/determination/character throughout the lineup. With few exceptions, few weak links, as the team with more of both those combined attributes wins the cup. A liberal sprinkling of talented gritty youth can help too, even if they lack experience. IMO.

 

Exactly. Balanced and complete teams playing determined outstanding hockey win Cups. Only 1 winner of 31, it's incredibly difficult.

 

On paper, what I said is really not rocket science, but it's very hard to achieve up and down the lineup. That team that battled the Kings in the finals they were an interesting blend. IMO we've regressed a bit since then, whether by injuries taking their toll, age, disinterest, and personnel moves.

 

And, of course, I forgot the elephant in the room. The salary cap woes that forced the organization's hand in who to keep and who to shed, and some questionable decisions and signings associated with that.

 

I'm guilty of looking forward currently, but there is reason for regressive analysis. We regressed for the reasons you mentioned and mishandled assets in so many ways. One thing to keep in mind is that we regret many of the UFA signings and trades for short term gains. We also regret poor decisions and returns on younger RFAs and FA's from bridge deals to not resigning Stralman, trading Hags for peanuts, not taking the 1st that was offered for Cam or what Anaheim was offering for G.

 

We need to learn from that shit. Adjust and not repeat the lessons from history in building a new stronger foundation. Boston, Toronto, and Winnipeg each have rebuilt a solid base in different ways.

 

That said, we need to stick with a 2-3 year plan. The fundamentals still do not change. Hire a good coach, acquire picks, draft and develop really well, get cap flexibility, be opportunistic and prepared to acquire talent, make solid hockey trades and go from there.

[Pete]

Liars throwing the medal was a child having a tantrum. But that's okay, he's a child.

[Puck Head]

I agree with most of this... not sure about Z getting the C, though, but that may depend on the coach.

 

I think JT or Kovy could be the guy. Both have worn letters at every level - and youve never heard a teammate complain about either.

 

JT would be a obvious choice, Kovalchuk if here, would be a short term signing. He bolted for the KHL 6 years ago? I?d be hesitant to proclaim him a NHL captain quite yet.

 

And wasn?t he stripped of his letter in the KHL ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Future]

How does anyone want JT to be a captain?

 

The Isles have been one of the most inconsistent teams - in terms of wins and effort - while he's been captain. Other than playing hard against the Rangers, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that NYI has or has ever had a strong leadership group in the last decade. I'd argue that making someone captain who comes from such a losing culture is far more likely to be toxic than beneficial.

[josh]

JT would be a obvious choice, Kovalchuk if here, would be a short term signing. He bolted for the KHL 6 years ago? I’d be hesitant to proclaim him a NHL captain quite yet.

 

And wasn’t he stripped of his letter in the KHL ?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

Yup. Thought it was something to do with the owner being pissed that there were rumors of him returning to the NHL.

 

And I thought he got it back the following season. Who knows.

 

Still think he would be a good leader for some of the younger Russians coming up. Regardless of a letter on his jersey or not (which, I dont care about) I care about a leadership presence that's been lacking in the lockerroom

[josh]

How does anyone want JT to be a captain?

 

The Isles have been one of the most inconsistent teams - in terms of wins and effort - while he's been captain. Other than playing hard against the Rangers, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that NYI has or has ever had a strong leadership group in the last decade. I'd argue that making someone captain who comes from such a losing culture is far more likely to be toxic than beneficial.

 

so we'll never see a captain again? JT, Karlsson, NY Rangers... all losing cultures right now