How Not to Rebuild: NYR Edition

[cupalife]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Don't care. Defense can be taught, creativity can't.

I agree but why can't we expect both.  There are plenty of great players who strive to be better complete players.  In the past week Panarin has raised laughter from the bench for blocking a shot and chuckles for backchecking and preventing a goal.  That really shouldn't be funny.  It should be expected.  

 

The bigger point is talent cannot be taught you are right.  Talent strives within the structure of a good team.  Hard to have structure though when you have some guys who don't seem to think they need to do what is expected from everybody else.  In that scenario it comes across as a player's points are the only thing that matters, the team's success seems secondary.  

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, cupalife said:

Hard to have structure though when you have some guys who don't seem to think they need to do what is expected from everybody else.

Well this is true in principle, that's not what's happening here.

 

There's no structure because nobody knows where they should be and therefore nobody tries very hard to be anywhere in particular. 

[cupalife]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Well this is true in principle, that's not what's happening here.

 

There's no structure because nobody knows where they should be and therefore nobody tries very hard to be anywhere in particular. 

Yeah but structure has a lot to do with the gaps between the forwards and defenseman.  That means back checking and breaking out as a group.  Panarin is the worst culprit on both counts.   

 

I don't know though I read the lohud article out yesterday and it seems like his lack of back checking is funny to Gallant, as it keeps the room loose when he blocks a shot or back checks.  So maybe it's not on Panarin. 

[Keirik]

On 12/6/2022 at 2:06 PM, CCCP said:

signing a new toy in Panarin is why we lost point-per-game Buchnevitch with a cap hit of $5.8 (and probably could've been even less with a longer term), why we cant sign/trade for a decent LD, why Othmann is blocked and will probably end up in Hartford next year, why our bottom 6 is shit, and many other problems.   Panarin is a flashier player but the team could be worse because of him.  Lets face the elephant in the room. 

Panarin is not why we lost Buch. Has nothing to do with it. That revisionist history. We couldn’t retain Buch for several reasons. The emergence of Fox and the drafting of Alf and Kak are why we cut ties with Buch. Fox was going to be due serious cash and the incorrect/premature belief that Kakko and Alf being the real deal eventually are why we decided to cut ties. When you draft 2 and 1 in consecutive years, you automatically set aside future moneys assuming they are going to leap off the charts. 

[cupalife]

14 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Panarin is not why we lost Buch. Has nothing to do with it. That revisionist history. We couldn’t retain Buch for several reasons. The emergence of Fox and the drafting of Alf and Kak are why we cut ties with Buch. Fox was going to be due serious cash and the incorrect/premature belief that Kakko and Alf being the real deal eventually are why we decided to cut ties. When you draft 2 and 1 in consecutive years, you automatically set aside future moneys assuming they are going to leap off the charts. 

You can't say it's because they had to pay Fox anymore than they had to pay Kreider, Panarin or anybody else.  They couldn't fit Buch's contract here right now.  They got rid of Buch because they were trying to get tougher and they couldn't sign him.  Hence why they wanted Blais back.  

[Keirik]

2 minutes ago, cupalife said:

You can't say it's because they had to pay Fox anymore than they had to pay Kreider, Panarin or anybody else.  They couldn't fit Buch's contract here right now.  They got rid of Buch because they were trying to get tougher and they couldn't sign him.  Hence why they wanted Blais back.  

I sure can say that. Panarin had nothing to do with Buchnevich. No one in their right mind though Fox was going to be a point per game player from day one. No one thought that Fox would win the Norris this quick in his career. When Panarin signed with tbe Rangers, LaFreniere wasn’t even drafted yet. They had to switch plans on the fly. They suddenly realized they have a Norris winner on their roster and a 1st overall on their team. 
 

they didn’t “get rid of Buch because they were trying to get tougher.” They knew they couldn’t keep Buch anymore because the emergence of Fox and presence of guys that you figure are going to be the real deal prevented them from retaining Buch. If salary cap weren’t in the league they never make that trade. 

[cupalife]

10 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I sure can say that. Panarin had nothing to do with Buchnevich. No one in their right mind though Fox was going to be a point per game player from day one. No one thought that Fox would win the Norris this quick in his career. When Panarin signed with tbe Rangers, LaFreniere wasn’t even drafted yet. They had to switch plans on the fly. They suddenly realized they have a Norris winner on their roster and a 1st overall on their team. 
 

they didn’t “get rid of Buch because they were trying to get tougher.” They knew they couldn’t keep Buch anymore because the emergence of Fox and presence of guys that you figure are going to be the real deal prevented them from retaining Buch. If salary cap weren’t in the league they never make that trade. 

We are pretty much in agreement.  That it isn't Panarin either anymore than it's Fox.

 

However the toughness issue we are not in agreement.  Didn't they sign Goodrow the same off season?  Didn't Tom Wilson rag doll Wilson at the end of the prior season?  They were unquestionably trying to get tougher and change their roster makeup.  Reeves?  The all happened that offseason did it not?

 

I'm saying Fox's contract is no more responsible than anyone else's. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by cupalife

[Keirik]

1 minute ago, cupalife said:

We are pretty much in agreement.  That it isn't Panarin either anymore than it's Fox.

 

However the toughness issue we are not in agreement.  Didn't they sign Goodrow the same off season?  Didn't Tom Wilson rag doll Wilson at the end of the prior season?  They were unquestionably trying to get tougher and change their roster makeup.  Reeves?  The all happened that offseason did it not?

 

I'm saying Fox's contract is no more responsible than anyone else's. 

I never said we weren’t trying to get tougher. I said they didn’t refuse to sign Buch because they were trying to get tougher. They got rid of Buch because they thought they had offensive replacements that would flourish in Kakko and Alf already on the roster and a Norris winner they were going to need a bucket of money to pay.

 

 

[cupalife]

3 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I never said we weren’t trying to get tougher. I said they didn’t refuse to sign Buch because they were trying to get tougher. They got rid of Buch because they thought they had offensive replacements that would flourish in Kakko and Alf already on the roster and a Norris winner they were going to need a bucket of money to pay.

 

 

Ok but Buch signed in St. Louis for $5.6M a year.  The Rangers added Goodrow at $3.7M and Reeves at $1.75M.  Seems like they could have had Buch instead of those two if it wasn't about being tougher.  

 

I do agree they thought they had replacements in Kakko and Laf.  As they should have.  But again they could have kept Buch and still gave Fox his contract.  All they had to do is not acquire Goodrow and Reeves.

[BrooksBurner]

12 minutes ago, cupalife said:

Ok but Buch signed in St. Louis for $5.6M a year.  The Rangers added Goodrow at $3.7M and Reeves at $1.75M.  Seems like they could have had Buch instead of those two if it wasn't about being tougher.  

 

I do agree they thought they had replacements in Kakko and Laf.  As they should have.  But again they could have kept Buch and still gave Fox his contract.  All they had to do is not acquire Goodrow and Reeves.

 

They could have fit Buch in for a year, maybe two. It was the long term cap hit they didn't want to take on. Plus they didn't know if the follow summer Kakko would be a $4+M extension player or...what he wound up being.

 

For the record, I wanted to keep Buch. Didn't give a shit about saving money for Strome or a 2C (I like Chytil and wanted him to get that opportunity), when we had a 70 pt 2-way winger

Edited December 13, 2022 by rmc51

[Keirik]

Just now, cupalife said:

Ok but Buch signed in St. Louis for $5.6M a year.  The Rangers added Goodrow at $3.7M and Reeves at $1.75M.  Seems like they could have had Buch instead of those two if it wasn't about being tougher.  

 

I do agree they thought they had replacements in Kakko and Laf.  As they should have.  But again they could have kept Buch and still gave Fox his contract.  All they had to do is not acquire Goodrow and Reeves.

Incorrect in my opinion. You’re still not understanding. In reality, Fox and Alf were the choices., and Kakko for the cap bonuses he could have achieved that you have to also keep cap space for. You’re always going to round our rosters with guys if you want to get tougher. You need 4 lines of players. They already knew Buch was never coming back because of the pure talented 1st rounders on their roster.
 

There is also the factor that going into Buch’’s contract year, I think there were something like 9m worth of performance bonuses possible for guys on entry level contracs they have to leave room for. They can get rolled into the following year but that means that they couldn’t give Buch a decent deal that was longer than a year or maybe two, so they went a different route. There is no guarantee he signed the same contract here. 

[Keirik]

6 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

 

They could have fit Buch in for a year, maybe two. It was the long term cap hit they didn't want to take on. Plus they didn't know if the follow summer Kakko would be a $4+M extension player or...what he wound up being.

 

For the record, I wanted to keep Buch. Didn't give a shit about saving money for Strome or a 2C (I like Chytil and wanted him to get that opportunity), when we had a 70 pt 2-way winger

I think we all wanted Buch to stay, but I think everyone knew he was never coming back. There was a lot of belief Kakko, Alf, Chytil, and even Kravtsov would be taking steps at this point a lot bigger than they have. 

[cupalife]

29 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Incorrect in my opinion. You’re still not understanding. In reality, Fox and Alf were the choices., and Kakko for the cap bonuses he could have achieved that you have to also keep cap space for. You’re always going to round our rosters with guys if you want to get tougher. You need 4 lines of players. They already knew Buch was never coming back because of the pure talented 1st rounders on their roster.
 

There is also the factor that going into Buch’’s contract year, I think there were something like 9m worth of performance bonuses possible for guys on entry level contracs they have to leave room for. They can get rolled into the following year but that means that they couldn’t give Buch a decent deal that was longer than a year or maybe two, so they went a different route. There is no guarantee he signed the same contract here. 

Doesn't really matter and it's a matter of opinion.  Bottom line there were multiple reasons why keeping Buch wasn't going to happen.

 

As far as the bolded I guess you could say that.  However the Rangers made the decision to pay Reeves and Goodrow over $5M combined to play that role.  They even traded for Goodrow before UFA opened up so they could negotiate with him early.  The Tom Wilson incidentally was a huge factor in the Rangers off season moves.  The fact they asked for Blais back was also to address their perceived weakness.  Funny thing is it's still a weakness.  They lost Buch and haven't got any tougher.

[cupalife]

32 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I think we all wanted Buch to stay, but I think everyone knew he was never coming back. There was a lot of belief Kakko, Alf, Chytil, and even Kravtsov would be taking steps at this point a lot bigger than they have. 

I think Kakko and Chytil have removed themselves from being worried about being busts.  They both have been very good this year.  A little snakebite but visually anyway both have taken big strides this year.  Laf and Kravtsov are obviously a concern

[Keirik]

21 minutes ago, cupalife said:

Doesn't really matter and it's a matter of opinion.  Bottom line there were multiple reasons why keeping Buch wasn't going to happen.

 

As far as the bolded I guess you could say that.  However the Rangers made the decision to pay Reeves and Goodrow over $5M combined to play that role.  They even traded for Goodrow before UFA opened up so they could negotiate with him early.  The Tom Wilson incidentally was a huge factor in the Rangers off season moves.  The fact they asked for Blais back was also to address their perceived weakness.  Funny thing is it's still a weakness.  They lost Buch and haven't got any tougher.

Again, it’s semantics , but for accuracy, Ryan Reaves and Barclay Goodrow are not why they didn’t retain Pavel Buchnevich. Buchnevich plays in a top 6 role. The Rangers have multiple recent high drafted 1st rounders they EXPECTED to take large leaps into top 6 roles between last year and going forward. I’m positive they expected Kakko to take a larger leap last year. I’m also pretty positive they didn’t expect Kravtsov to take his ball and go home. They probably didn’t expect Lundkvist  to give them nothing. They probably figured Laf gets a bit better as well. These are the guys they expected to make up and give a little more in terms of the offensive side of the game. Hell in an ideal world this organization was hoping Chytil evolved into a true 2c last year to make Trocheck unnecessary. 
 

  There is a big difference between saying “Rangers decided to sacrifice offense for toughness” and saying “ Rangers assumed their high end talent would provide the offense making Buch redundant.” Using some of that money elsewhere was to round out roster needs but in no way shape or form did the Rangers expect Kakko to score 7 goals, Kravtsov never play, Lundkvist not be good enough to make the roster, Chytil score 8 goals, etc. Reaves never really played a top 6 role and Goodrow wasn’t brought in initially for that either. The Tom Wilson event didn’t make Buch go bye bye. He already was going bye bye long before that. 

[cupalife]

33 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Again, it’s semantics , but for accuracy, Ryan Reaves and Barclay Goodrow are not why they didn’t retain Pavel Buchnevich. Buchnevich plays in a top 6 role. The Rangers have multiple recent high drafted 1st rounders they EXPECTED to take large leaps into top 6 roles between last year and going forward. I’m positive they expected Kakko to take a larger leap last year. I’m also pretty positive they didn’t expect Kravtsov to take his ball and go home. They probably didn’t expect Lundkvist  to give them nothing. They probably figured Laf gets a bit better as well. These are the guys they expected to make up and give a little more in terms of the offensive side of the game. Hell in an ideal world this organization was hoping Chytil evolved into a true 2c last year to make Trocheck unnecessary. 
 

  There is a big difference between saying “Rangers decided to sacrifice offense for toughness” and saying “ Rangers assumed their high end talent would provide the offense making Buch redundant.” Using some of that money elsewhere was to round out roster needs but in no way shape or form did the Rangers expect Kakko to score 7 goals, Kravtsov never play, Lundkvist not be good enough to make the roster, Chytil score 8 goals, etc. Reaves never really played a top 6 role and Goodrow wasn’t brought in initially for that either. The Tom Wilson event didn’t make Buch go bye bye. He already was going bye bye long before that. 

Like I said there were multiple reasons why Buch is gone and was never going to be brought back.  Arguing for the sake of arguing right now.