Phil Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 Kovalchuk has always been a strong leader and was well-respected in the room. His leaving New Jersey was more about mutual benefit than him bailing. It's revisionist history to suggest the latter. Just read this: https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/rangers-must-go-after-ilya-kovalchuk-who-isnt-who-you-think-he-is/ Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 so we'll never see a captain again? JT, Karlsson, NY Rangers... all losing cultures right now This is 35 leaps away from what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Kovalchuk has always been a strong leader and was well-respected in the room. His leaving New Jersey was more about mutual benefit than him bailing. It's revisionist history to suggest the latter. Just read this: https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/rangers-must-go-after-ilya-kovalchuk-who-isnt-who-you-think-he-is/ Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Phil with all do respect, regardless of the benefit to both he and the org he signed a long term deal and walked away, the intention when both signed wasn't for it to come apart so quickly. He's also as pointed out before is allergic to the defensive zone and that's as poor of a leader as you can find, forget about the fact he would be here on short term deal. Using the same theme giving Zucc the C makes no sense to me being he's going into the last year of his deal and could be moved at the deadline. To me what makes the most sense is to go without a C until someone steps up and actually earns it. IF Tavares were to sign here I wouldn't even give it to him when he walks in the door, does he get it at some point, odds are yes. There's no reason to have somewhere wear the C to start the season just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 I think when most of us are discussing leadership moving forward, we are referring to the players, and not necessarily the letter on the jersey. If the room is full of roll-overs like last season, yes, there will be a much bigger emphasis on the C, hence why some of the conversations have mentioned bringing in more than one players, along with a coach, in hopes to instill a new attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 I don't think there will even be a C next year. New coach with new players is likely to go with the group that ended this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYRangers723 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 I don't think there will even be a C next year. New coach with new players is likely to go with the group that ended this year. Probably the best thing. Do you think they will stick with 3 alternates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 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. I'm confused now, it would appear you were talking about handing out letters here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 I'm confused now, it would appear you were talking about handing out letters here. Obviously, the discussions will cross paths. I was replying to a post. And I don't see Zucc as a leader, so why wouldn't I address that in a reaponse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Phil with all do respect, regardless of the benefit to both he and the org he signed a long term deal and walked away, the intention when both signed wasn't for it to come apart so quickly. He's also as pointed out before is allergic to the defensive zone and that's as poor of a leader as you can find, forget about the fact he would be here on short term deal. Using the same theme giving Zucc the C makes no sense to me being he's going into the last year of his deal and could be moved at the deadline. To me what makes the most sense is to go without a C until someone steps up and actually earns it. IF Tavares were to sign here I wouldn't even give it to him when he walks in the door, does he get it at some point, odds are yes. There's no reason to have somewhere wear the C to start the season just because. He walked away in the same way that Naslund, Klein, Drury and more "retired" for the Rangers and wound up with cushy jobs down the line. It was of mutual benefit in design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Except that the Rangers didn't give up a boatload in prospects to get any of those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Except that the Rangers didn't give up a boatload in prospects to get any of those guys. Right. It's almost like they didn't anticipate a negative response to their circumvention in the next CBA and had to make a last min decision that was contextual to the situation they were in. But beside that, it was clearly orchestrated by design to pivot into an area of mutual benefit for both parties after running into their (again specific) obstacle, which could be construed as similar to the Rangers who saw players decline at a quicker rate than expected and worked out unique arrangements of comparable benefit. Thanks Pete. You added a lot to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LONG LONG LONG TIME FAN Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 So. Kovalchuk is gonna bring that great leadership to the NYR. The guy bailed on an obscenely huge contract which was unheard of at the time. As I said before; NYET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Right. It's almost like they didn't anticipate a negative response to their circumvention in the next CBA and had to make a last min decision that was contextual to the situation they were in. But beside that, it was clearly orchestrated by design to pivot into an area of mutual benefit for both parties after running into their (again specific) obstacle, which could be construed as similar to the Rangers who saw players decline at a quicker rate than expected and worked out unique arrangements of comparable benefit. Thanks Pete. You added a lot to this. And despite the many words, you added nothing. The examples you gave for the Rangers are apples to monkey wrench comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 And despite the many words, you added nothing. The examples you gave for the Rangers are apples to monkey wrench comparisons.Yes sir, not even remotely close to the same thing. Kovalchuk signed a 17 year deal and left after what 2 or 3 years. The guys that were mentioned left how many years early and were not in the "prime" of their careers? Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.