2021 Offseason Thread: Fuck Around & Find Out!

[josh]

I also dont think the Rangers should mess with their depth. People will be pissed with a 3rd line of Kreider - Bozak - Foligno when Zibanejad's MIA and Panarin's line is quiet. KZB is fine when they show up. 2nd year Lafreneire with a big bodied C and a dangerous RW going against a teams 3rd pair - yes please.

 

Cant lose sight of those things. They need to compliment those strengths of the team. KZB back to normal is vital, honestly. If they can't do it, those guys gotta be moved.

 

 

 

Panarin - Strome - Kakko playing big

Kreider - Zibanejad - Buchnevich

Lafreniere - Big Body - Kravtsov

[BrooksBurner]

Sure, so based on the fact they're so similar, what I look at is who gives the team more? The answer is Strome. The other question is, who gives you more in a trade? The answer is Chytil. All roads lead to the same result IMO.

 

Again, don't disagree, except you are operating under the assumption we need to keep one of them.

 

Zibanejad

X

Y

 

That's the equation for me. There's a bunch of centers available in UFA or (probably) via trade.

[Phil]

I also dont think the Rangers should mess with their depth. People will be pissed with a 3rd line of Kreider - Bozak - Foligno when Zibanejad's MIA and Panarin's line is quiet. KZB is fine when they show up. 2nd year Lafreneire with a big bodied C and a dangerous RW going against a teams 3rd pair - yes please.

 

Cant lose sight of those things. They need to compliment those strengths of the team. KZB back to normal is vital, honestly. If they can't do it, those guys gotta be moved.

 

 

 

Panarin - Strome - Kakko playing big

Kreider - Zibanejad - Buchnevich

Lafreniere - Big Body - Kravtsov

 

I mean, this does very little for me, personally. Especially if the mantra is to get tougher to play against. It's mostly shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Your top-six is literally the same as it is today minus less dynamism from Lafreniere.

 

Again, don't disagree, except you are operating under the assumption we need to keep one of them.

 

Zibanejad

X

Y

 

That's the equation for me. There's a bunch of centers available in UFA or (probably) via trade.

 

That's my equation, too. What I'm saying is that I'd rather keep X (Strome) over Y (Chytil), even if X ends up in place of Y.

[BrooksBurner]

I mean, this does very little for me, personally. Especially if the mantra is to get tougher to play against. It's mostly shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Your top-six is literally the same as it is today minus less dynamism from Lafreniere.

 

 

 

That's my equation, too. What I'm saying is that I'd rather keep X (Strome) over Y (Chytil), even if X ends up in place of Y.

 

That's fine. So would I, probably, if cap weren't an issue. If you do have to keep one, and to keep cap the same, it's ultimately Chytil/Buchnevich vs Strome/a 3RW thats as cheap as Chytil?

[Gravesy]

I don't agree. Kreider and Buchnevich can both play a more rugged game. But I do think Panarin, Strome, Kakko/Kravtsov would be utterly neutralized, every shift.

 

I mean, we have enough evidence that the KZB line gets neutralized pretty consistently when games get tight, physical and bogged down. And these are games that look like pee wee games compared to playoff hockey. I don’t disagree that they’re better suited to that type of game than the Panarin line, but my main point is that it isn’t enough to break the homogeneity by addressing the bottom six; it’s applicable to the entire roster.

[LindG1000]

That's fine. So would I, probably, if cap weren't an issue. If you do have to keep one, and to keep cap the same, it's ultimately Chytil/Buchnevich vs Strome/a 3RW thats as cheap as Chytil?

 

I think Chytil doesn't really play a significant role in this calculation. He's off ELC, but he's probably not getting more than 2-2.5 and that's a generally workable number for his output. Chytil can also be that 3W that's as cheap as Chytil.

 

The biggest domino is ultimately "who is the center that joins this team via trade". That could send Chytil off. It could send Buchnevich off. It could send Kakko or Kravtsov off. It could even send a guy like K'Andre Miller off - but this is the domino that has to fall before we understand the cap ramifications of signing a guy like Buchnevich longer term. There's a huge difference between acquiring Tomas Hertl/Sean Monahan and acquiring someone like Eichel.

[Phil]

I mean, we have enough evidence that the KZB line gets neutralized pretty consistently when games get tight, physical and bogged down. And these are games that look like pee wee games compared to playoff hockey. I don’t disagree that they’re better suited to that type of game than the Panarin line, but my main point is that it isn’t enough to break the homogeneity by addressing the bottom six; it’s applicable to the entire roster.

 

Then the problems are even bigger than we imagine, because so will Panarin/Strome/Kakko (or Kravtsov). This basically reinforces the idea that Brooks has been drumming for months, which is that they need to reinvent the top-six and are going to have to trade at least one guy we won't like them dealing.

[josh]

I mean, this does very little for me, personally. Especially if the mantra is to get tougher to play against. It's mostly shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Your top-six is literally the same as it is today minus less dynamism from Lafreniere.

 

I'm trying to be optimistic, I guess. I dont think its shuffling the chairs, its changing the mindset on how we view players to determine what is really necessary to add.

A few weeks ago, I think 31 mentioned about turning some of our guys into those "hard to play against guys". Although they wont be bruisers, or fighters, but let's see.

 

Kreider -6'3, powerful. can be tough to play against.

Zibanejad - 6'2 picturing him as a shutdown 2C and a scoring threat, on paper, is harder to play against than 1C Z or 2C Strome.

Buchnevich - maybe takes it to the next step, throws more hits, uses his body more like Svechnikov on the forecheck. Theyre the same size.

Kakko - 6'3, 200lbs. Becoming hard to play against. I dont think anyone would be upset with a Hossa-comparison. Hopefully not Marcel.

Lafreniere - I've been told he'll have some grit and has a bit of a mean streak to him.

Kravtsov - 6'4. Going to be tough to play against defensively. Still growing into his body. Was not afraid to scrum it up in the KHL this season. That side will continue to develop.

 

If someones gotta go, its the older guys. Too much talent and potential in these young kids.

I still think adding 1 or 2 guys with the right mentality, and character, and that type of play spreads throughout the lineup.

 

Add the grit but not at the expense of the future.

[Ozzy]

I'm trying to be optimistic, I guess. I dont think its shuffling the chairs, its changing the mindset on how we view players to determine what is really necessary to add.

A few weeks ago, I think 31 mentioned about turning some of our guys into those "hard to play against guys". Although they wont be bruisers, or fighters, but let's see.

 

Kreider -6'3, powerful. can be tough to play against.

Zibanejad - 6'2 picturing him as a shutdown 2C and a scoring threat, on paper, is harder to play against than 1C Z or 2C Strome.

Buchnevich - maybe takes it to the next step, throws more hits, uses his body more like Svechnikov on the forecheck. Theyre the same size.

Kakko - 6'3, 200lbs. Becoming hard to play against. I dont think anyone would be upset with a Hossa-comparison. Hopefully not Marcel.

Lafreniere - I've been told he'll have some grit and has a bit of a mean streak to him.

Kravtsov - 6'4. Going to be tough to play against defensively. Still growing into his body. Was not afraid to scrum it up in the KHL this season. That side will continue to develop.

 

If someones gotta go, its the older guys. Too much talent and potential in these young kids.

I still think adding 1 or 2 guys with the right mentality, and character, and that type of play spreads throughout the lineup.

 

Add the grit but not at the expense of the future.

 

I'm on board with this one Josh!

 

You add a Greenway, and a Lucic/Getzlaf. Add an ass-kicker in Reaves and we're set!

[Gravesy]

Then the problems are even bigger than we imagine, because so will Panarin/Strome/Kakko (or Kravtsov). This basically reinforces the idea that Brooks has been drumming for months, which is that they need to reinvent the top-six and are going to have to trade at least one guy we won't like them dealing.

 

That’s pretty much in line with my thinking, yeah.

[jsm7302]

I'll send Kakko all day long with a d man in the pipeline for some legitimate brut strength and force in the top 6.

[Pete]

Of course he does. He gets PP time and a steady superstar linemate. Chytil gets a revolving door of linemates.

 

How long are we going to use the "superstar linemate" argument, that's already been debunked? Strome put up points with Panarin on the sidelines, and frankly IIRC Kreider went cold immediately after being moved away from Strome. It takes good players to play with good players, and if we use the "Panarin logic", the RW on that line would be raking points as well. As we've seen with Fast, Kakko, Blackwell...That's just not the case.

 

Per Leftwing Lock, Strome played with 4 different linemates, in various combinations, this year (Panarin, Kreider, Blackwell, Kakko).

Chytil also played with 4 (Kakko, Laf, Gauthier, Rooney).

 

Where's the revolving door?

 

And frankly, Quinn did a fantastic job sheltering Chytil. One of the most favorable zone starts and QoC on team. Also per LWL

 

As far as PP time...I mean Blackwell was playing C on until #2...Chytil couldn't even push him out? And not sure what a few seconds on PP2 would have done.

[Pete]

I'm trying to be optimistic, I guess. I dont think its shuffling the chairs, its changing the mindset on how we view players to determine what is really necessary to add.

A few weeks ago, I think 31 mentioned about turning some of our guys into those "hard to play against guys". Although they wont be bruisers, or fighters, but let's see.

 

Kreider -6'3, powerful. can be tough to play against.

Zibanejad - 6'2 picturing him as a shutdown 2C and a scoring threat, on paper, is harder to play against than 1C Z or 2C Strome.

Buchnevich - maybe takes it to the next step, throws more hits, uses his body more like Svechnikov on the forecheck. Theyre the same size.

Kakko - 6'3, 200lbs. Becoming hard to play against. I dont think anyone would be upset with a Hossa-comparison. Hopefully not Marcel.

Lafreniere - I've been told he'll have some grit and has a bit of a mean streak to him.

Kravtsov - 6'4. Going to be tough to play against defensively. Still growing into his body. Was not afraid to scrum it up in the KHL this season. That side will continue to develop.

 

If someones gotta go, its the older guys. Too much talent and potential in these young kids.

I still think adding 1 or 2 guys with the right mentality, and character, and that type of play spreads throughout the lineup.

 

Add the grit but not at the expense of the future.

 

I agree with this (have to spread the rep around). I think people are conflating the issue here. The Rangers are easy to play against because they are one dimensional. Rangers fans, being who they are, think that means we have to go get Lucic-like-objects. I also think people are over-rotating on a single event where a player who is a unicorn took liberties while guys like Trouba and Kreider weren't in the lineup. And frankly, Wilson does that even when Ryan Reaves is on the other team.

 

Back to how they play. As I said in another thread, a lot of this is coaching. They have some players who are willing to simplify, play off the cycle and not the rush. If the Panarin line and Zib line are getting shut down, then make the world smaller for the other team. Put them on the same line, and bump Kreider to the Strome/Kakko line who have shown that willingness to cycle. And....You need that change of pace 3rd line.

 

Also, I think some of the talk about the Rangers not being able to keep up in this playoff is maybe getting a little overblown. Most playoffs, the top 6 cancel each other out and there's always that depth line or player that able to make a difference. That Pat Maroon like object.

[Gravesy]

Also, I think some of the talk about the Rangers not being able to keep up in this playoff is maybe getting a little overblown. Most playoffs, the top 6 cancel each other out and there's always that depth line or player that able to make a difference. That Pat Maroon like object.

Sure, but that's predicated on the idea that each top 6 is built to perform in the playoffs. I don't think that's the case for the Rangers top 6 as currently constructed. Our top 6 is fucking fantastic in regular season, shinny style games. They struggle to perform when their opponent plays effective shut down hockey. It doesn't seem likely that would somehow improve in a playoff setting where the games are even tighter, faster and tougher. The only evidence we have of it is the complete disappearing act against the Canes in the play-ins. That's a small sample size, but combined with what we've seen from them in similar situations during the regular seasons the past few years doesn't really fill me with confidence.

I definitely think a little shake-up is needed. Not advocating blowing it up, but I'd like to see a center and a winger that could compliment the talent that we already have.

[Phil]

Sure, but that's predicated on the idea that each top 6 is built to perform in the playoffs. I don't think that's the case for the Rangers top 6 as currently constructed. Our top 6 is fucking fantastic in regular season, shinny style games. They struggle to perform when their opponent plays effective shut down hockey. It doesn't seem likely that would somehow improve in a playoff setting where the games are even tighter, faster and tougher. The only evidence we have of it is the complete disappearing act against the Canes in the play-ins. That's a small sample size, but combined with what we've seen from them in similar situations during the regular seasons the past few years doesn't really fill me with confidence.

I definitely think a little shake-up is needed. Not advocating blowing it up, but I'd like to see a center and a winger that could compliment the talent that we already have.

 

It's also evident in the regular season series against playoff teams — the Penguins and Islanders, most notably. Telling them to "just play different" when they're not actually designed/constructed to play different isn't sound strategy. It's a hope and a prayer.

[ThirtyONE]

It's also evident in the regular season series against playoff teams — the Penguins and Islanders, most notably. Telling them to "just play different" when they're not actually designed/constructed to play different isn't sound strategy. It's a hope and a prayer.

 

The proverbial switch flip isn't a real thing.

[Pete]

It's coaching. It's how Trotz got the Islanders to play the way they're playing now.

 

Their top Center is 510 180 lb skill guy.

[ThirtyONE]

It's coaching. It's how Trotz got the Islanders to play the way they're playing now.

 

Their top Center is 510 180 lb skill guy.

 

Agree but take it a step further. It's the coaches attitude, not x's and o's. That's why the Rangers went to the ECF with Torts with only two players eclipsing 54 points on the year. Rangers had more than half their roster score less than 10 points that season. They only had 5 players score more than 38 points. That's an absolute joke of a lineup and yet they had more success than this years team who could score at will.

[RichieNextel305]

Agree but take it a step further. It's the coaches attitude, not x's and o's. That's why the Rangers went to the ECF with Torts with only two players eclipsing 54 points on the year. Rangers had more than half their roster score less than 10 points that season. They only had 5 players score more than 38 points. That's an absolute joke of a lineup and yet they had more success than this years team who could score at will.

 

You have to remember that that was the best season of Lundqvists career, arguably the best season of Gaborik’s career, the best season of Callahan’s career, and we had an elite level defense. Girardi was an All-Star that season, Staal the year before, McDonagh was blossoming into a #1 and Del Zotto rebounded big time from his awful second season. Stralman played better as the year progressed. Our only hole was Bickel, who barely played anyway.

 

I get what you’re saying and don’t necessarily disagree. But, when you have a goalie have a GAA of under 2, an explosive 42-goal winger, a strong middle 6 and a top notch defense? It wasn’t surprising to see where they were. And I still say had Nash been acquired that deadline and been able to walk in as a complimentary piece for the stretch run, that they would have ultimately won the Cup.

 

They just lacked experience of a long playoff run. Ottawa pushed them further than they should have, and we have Washington not one, but two solid punches to the gut that we let them get up from. A team with experience would have smelled the blood and gone for the kill. That group, though it did feature plenty of guys with experience (Richards for example) and our core who had been to the playoffs before, had not really seen that level of the playoffs just yet. It was a learning experience. And one I’m glad Tortorella was around for for that group.

[ThirtyONE]

You have to remember that that was the best season of Lundqvists career, arguably the best season of Gaborik’s career, the best season of Callahan’s career, and we had an elite level defense. Girardi was an All-Star that season, Staal the year before, McDonagh was blossoming into a #1 and Del Zotto rebounded big time from his awful second season. Stralman played better as the year progressed. Our only hole was Bickel, who barely played anyway.

 

I get what you’re saying and don’t necessarily disagree. But, when you have a goalie have a GAA of under 2, an explosive 42-goal winger, a strong middle 6 and a top notch defense? It wasn’t surprising to see where they were. And I still say had Nash been acquired that deadline and been able to walk in as a complimentary piece for the stretch run, that they would have ultimately won the Cup.

 

They just lacked experience of a long playoff run. Ottawa pushed them further than they should have, and we have Washington not one, but two solid punches to the gut that we let them get up from. A team with experience would have smelled the blood and gone for the kill. That group, though it did feature plenty of guys with experience (Richards for example) and our core who had been to the playoffs before, had not really seen that level of the playoffs just yet. It was a learning experience. And one I’m glad Tortorella was around for for that group.

 

I mean all those things you mentioned as good things were not as good as this year's individual play. Panarin was better than Gaborik ever was. Zibanejad scored more points than Stepan did in a shortened season and paced more than Richards. So did Strome. Callahan wasn't as good as Buch. McDonaugh, G, and Staal weren't Norris candidates.

 

All this is to say, that team sucked relatively to the team we have now, but they had good coaching and the right kind of players that got them through the season and deep into the playoffs. Those 15-25 point players that filled that lineup are WAY easier to find than the 95pt players that we currently have. The coach's attitude and style of play and ability to shape those high end players into a team will determine where this teams goes next season, as well as the GM's ability to bring in the right 15-25 point players to round out the bottom of the roster.

[Phil]

It's coaching. It's how Trotz got the Islanders to play the way they're playing now.

 

Their top Center is 510 180 lb skill guy.

 

The Islanders are better built to play like that. Trotz did incredible work to do what he's done with them, but he wasn't given a team of figure skaters. Bailey, Cizikas, Clutterbuck, Martin, Dal Colle, Lee, Komarov, Pageau, Coburn, Mayfield, Pulock, Pelech, etc. aren't being asked to do something/anything they weren't inherently capable of. Can the same be said of Zibanejad, Kakko, Strome, Panarin, Chytil, Miller, etc? I'm not so sure.

[Phil]

I mean all those things you mentioned as good things were not as good as this year's individual play. Panarin was better than Gaborik ever was. Zibanejad scored more points than Stepan did in a shortened season and paced more than Richards. So did Strome. Callahan wasn't as good as Buch. McDonaugh, G, and Staal weren't Norris candidates.

 

All this is to say, that team sucked relatively to the team we have now, but they had good coaching and the right kind of players that got them through the season and deep into the playoffs. Those 15-25 point players that filled that lineup are WAY easier to find than the 95pt players that we currently have. The coach's attitude and style of play and ability to shape those high end players into a team will determine where this teams goes next season, as well as the GM's ability to bring in the right 15-25 point players to round out the bottom of the roster.

 

Winning games in the regular season establishes playoff position, not playoff viability. The best constructed rosters tend to win out when the games tighten up and the physicality is ratcheted up (as whistles are pocketed).

[ThirtyONE]

Winning games in the regular season establishes playoff position, not playoff viability. The best constructed rosters tend to win out when the games tighten up and the physicality is ratcheted up (as whistles are pocketed).

 

Right which is why the Rangers winning only 4 one-goal games this year was a sign that they were not a playoff team. Again that comes down to coaching and a few additions.

[RichieNextel305]

That roster was also a bit more mature and didn’t have the momentary lapses that this group has that cost us games. And though I’d take Fox over any of those defensemen, the defense on that team was significantly better than this years group. That forward group had a lot of different looks. You had a few guys who had good years offensively, but the middle-6 and 4th line were very strong and could contribute on the scoresheet, on the PK, setting the tone physically, etc. Also, again, Henrik was at the very height of his power. He was the best we’ve ever seen him that year. As much as I do believe in Igor, Henrik that year was borderline historical. Overall, that team had a lot of guys were put in the proper places to succeed. Guys had identified roles and were (for the most part) played in those roles. This years team didn’t, and that largely had to do with age obviously as were still in the weeding out process here with these kids to see where in the lineup they fit.

 

For sure, this teams talent blows that teams talent away. But, that teams overall game, team defense (not knocking this years addition; they made tremendous strides and will only improve in this department), goaltending and (yes I agree) coaching blows this teams out of the water.

[LindG1000]

That roster was also a bit more mature and didn’t have the momentary lapses that this group has that cost us games. And though I’d take Fox over any of those defensemen, the defense on that team was significantly better than this years group. That forward group had a lot of different looks. You had a few guys who had good years offensively, but the middle-6 and 4th line were very strong and could contribute on the scoresheet, on the PK, setting the tone physically, etc. Also, again, Henrik was at the very height of his power. He was the best we’ve ever seen him that year. As much as I do believe in Igor, Henrik that year was borderline historical. Overall, that team had a lot of guys were put in the proper places to succeed. Guys had identified roles and were (for the most part) played in those roles. This years team didn’t, and that largely had to do with age obviously as were still in the weeding out process here with these kids to see where in the lineup they fit.

 

For sure, this teams talent blows that teams talent away. But, that teams overall game, team defense (not knocking this years addition; they made tremendous strides and will only improve in this department), goaltending and (yes I agree) coaching blows this teams out of the water.

 

Maybe a fair question, maybe not - but for how long does most of this hold true? Comparing this team to the 2012 team is like comparing a veal cutlet to a dry-aged ribeye - sure, it's tender, but it ain't done! Our defense is going to be - somehow - much, much better than the best iterations of the early 2010s D corps. Our offense is going to be much more dynamic and capable of scoring goals - hell, it already is. IMO, the component missing is that the 2012 team knew how to adapt to win - and that comes with time, veterancy, leadership, and a bit of a change in what is a dangerous, but very homogeneous lineup.