It's Time to Have the Lafrenière Conversation

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, jsrangers said:

 

so his 39 points has his right below 4 mil per season, woof.

 

That is what I would guess he will ask. $4M per. I think the Rangers will be mid-2s, and the "in the middle figure" will be low 3s. 2 x $3.25.

[Keirik]

21, 31, 39. Always trajecting upwards point wise. Hopefully they settle on 3m max for a 2 year deal. He’s still a 1st overall and despite a low value, would still be enticing for a lot of teams if they feel next summer he isn’t going to ever work here.

[Cash or Czech]

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

That is what I would guess he will ask. $4M per. I think the Rangers will be mid-2s, and the "in the middle figure" will be low 3s. 2 x $3.25.

 

He's not arbitration eligible. His options are to sign the thing or sit out. Kakko paced 31 points the year before he signed his 2x$2.1M contract. 

[Pete]

29 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Jack Hughes is why you need to be patient with young players. Am I saying Lafreniere is going to be Jack Hughes? No, but people were anointing Hughes a bust not too long ago.

No they weren't.

[Sharpshooter]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

No they weren't.

I did hear it mentioned. They maybe weren't from the brightest people around, but the chatter was there. Point being, it was just a really stupid take. lol

[Morphinity 2.0]

35 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Should the Devils have played Jack Hughes after a 21 pt in 61 game rookie season, or signed someone immediately better?

 

I feel like you know the answer to your own question, and the black and white nature of the question is illegitimate.

The Rangers didn't sign Panarin or Kreider after Laf had a putrid rookie year - they were already here. 

 

The Devils didn't have anyone else and were just fine continuing to be bad for at least another year or two. Plus, even in his rookie year, there were moments where you saw that Hughes would be special, it was just his skating wasn't where it needed to be and he was super small. He worked on both of those things over the next few years and we all know how it turned out. We can't say the same for Laf.

 

 

[Cash or Czech]

Maybe after a disappointing rookie year? But by year 2 he was scoring at a 45 point pace, and finally jumped to over a point/game by year 3. 

[Sharpshooter]

Either way, it was a huge overreaction.

[Pete]

Yea I don't know why we're trying to compare Hughes and Lafreniere.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Pete

[Vodka Drunkenski]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Because he's a valuable player and I'd rather find a way to remove the blockers from him having playoff success than remove him from the team.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Vodka Drunkenski said:

Exactly, this, except I'm Napoleon.

[Morphinity 2.0]

21 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yea I don't know why we're trying to compare Hughes and Lafreniere.

Because he also started pretty slow, at least production-wise. But the similarities pretty much end there. 

[Valriera]

It's comedic to me that we think Lafreniere's unfortunately unexciting and uninfluential presence on the team has almost anything to do with this team succeeding or failing in the playoffs this year and last year. You can't really have both. Either the guy is a player, and the fact that he's not producing is why we're sucking, or he doesn't matter, and thinking about trading what is essentially a high first round pick draft asset for anything other than the equivalent because you don't like him makes no sense. 

 

You either:
1) Bank on him getting better and develop the player so he has the opportunity to

2) Trade him for futures, and if that's the case I'd recommend shipping Kakko and him for another shot at a high, high pick like 1 or 2. I'm not interested in Laf for a 13th pick or something. You don't get anything there, you just get rid of a player for an equally mediocre player. 

 

You definitely don't try to make this team better next year by trading lafreniere. 

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Because he also started pretty slow, at least production-wise. But the similarities pretty much end there. 

Right, by the end of year 3, they knew what they had, which is a reasonable timeline. And sorry, but you can't tell me that Lafreniere would be even close to Hughes "if only het got PP time!"

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Valriera said:

It's comedic to me that we think Lafreniere's unfortunately unexciting and uninfluential presence on the team has almost anything to do with this team succeeding or failing in the playoffs this year and last year. You can't really have both. Either the guy is a player, and the fact that he's not producing is why we're sucking, or he doesn't matter, and thinking about trading what is essentially a high first round pick draft asset for anything other than the equivalent because you don't like him makes no sense. 

 

You either:
1) Bank on him getting better and develop the player so he has the opportunity to

2) Trade him for futures, and if that's the case I'd recommend shipping Kakko and him for another shot at a high, high pick like 1 or 2. I'm not interested in Laf for a 13th pick or something. You don't get anything there, you just get rid of a player for an equally mediocre player. 

 

You definitely don't try to make this team better next year by trading lafreniere. 

No one is giving a 1 or 2 in this draft for a busted 1 and 2 from drafts 3 and 4 years ago.

[Valriera]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

No one is giving a 1 or 2 in this draft for a busted 1 and 2 from drafts 3 and 4 years ago.

Definitely not Bedard this year, but you can't tell me that we couldn't have packaged them for last year's number 1. Would have to be within the realm of possibility. Two A range prospects with plenty of upside still left for last year's number one? I think that's a call the team entertains last year. This year, no, Bedard is too good.

 

Point is the same, I'm not interested in trading him for a 13 or so. We're not getting better in the future that way and we're not getting better now. 

 

I'm also not interested in trading him to get better now because he's not why this team lost this year or last year in the playoffs. It's a lateral move for no reason other than we don't like him. 

 

I'm definitely interested if we are either packaging him with Kakko for a high, high pick, or we're getting well above current market value in prospect return for him to use down the line. In that world, we accept that we need their upsides to be better than they are showing for our future, and that we still have time left to invest in that before the current core ages/contracts expire. Because I agree, the kid hasn't lit it on fire and hasn't been good and has had enough chances to show something. But that doesn't mean just ship him off for a LW replacement because all of that is true, that would be worse asset management than just keeping him and taking a flyer on the upside that another team would buy from us. If we say, put Othmann there and trade Laf for whatever picks we can get, I don't think it's intriguing unless we're packaging him with Kakko for a high pick, because a mid first round pick doesn't get us anything but his 3rd line replacement down the line with worse upside.   

[The Dude]

11 hours ago, Gravesy said:

I don't really disagree with this, but for now I try to look at this way:

If you completely remove yourself from the fact he was #1OA, billed as a franchise altering player and the crushing disappointment that ensued, a 21 year old player coming off a 40 point season feels like someone we might want to keep around. He did that with no PP time to speak of and with line mates who, let's be fair, are varying degrees of disappointments themselves. 

If - and this is the caveat - he's willing to be paid in line with what he is and not his draft stock - I'm not really sure what's in it for the Rangers to cut ties, unless someone is willing to give you a real and significant upgrade at RW. 

But what he is, isn't what the team needs.

 

He isn't anything right now.

 

They need him to have a niche. Energy guy. Set up man. Grinder. Speedster. Shooter. Being capable of PKing. He's none of that. 

 

And not for nothing,  but hasn't he spent the last 2-3 months on the PP? When he was first put there, he got some results,  being a Kreider-lite, net front presence and deflecting shots. Where'd that go? 

 

It's like he accomplishes a feat, and then that's good enough for him. One and done, then he's back to being a passenger that really doesn't do anything.  

 

The only reason to keep him, is in hopes that he matures or a real coach can tap into that noggin and get some sort of identity out of him that kicks him up a few notches above this nothing player he is right now. 

 

I just don't see it. Hopefully another GM does and the Rangers can move on, while addressing a need. 

 

[RangersIn7]

Whatever his ceiling eventually is, we still haven’t seen his best hockey. That’s still in front of him. 
They’ll keep him around affordably unless there’s a hockey trade to be made. 

[Br4d]

There's no window for a cup right now.  The window was *if* the kids turned out to be a good 2nd line+.

 

Mika is the Rangers best player right now and he's Jacques LeMaire not Bryan Trottier.  I recognize there's a size difference between Mika and LeMaire but they are the same kind of player.  Good responsible defensive players who pivot excellently for their wings and are fairly soft non-contact players.

 

What Mika needs is for Laffy to turn into Steve Shutt and Kakko to turn into Guy LaFleur.  That's what gets the Rangers over the top.  What he has instead is Chris Kreider who is an excellent journeyman LW at this point in his career (1 All-star appearance in his 11 year career) and a RW to be named later because that's always what the Rangers have going into the season.

 

Seriously, the Rangers are a good team but they have no business being in the top 4 conversation even if they keep making trades at the deadline to try to fake it.

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, Br4d said:

There's no window for a cup right now.  The window was *if* the kids turned out to be a good 2nd line+.

 

Mika is the Rangers best player right now and he's Jacques LeMaire not Bryan Trottier.  I recognize there's a size difference between Mika and LeMaire but they are the same kind of player.  Good responsible defensive players who pivot excellently for their wings and are fairly soft non-contact players.

 

What Mika needs is for Laffy to turn into Steve Shutt and Kakko to turn into Guy LaFleur.  That's what gets the Rangers over the top.  What he has instead is Chris Kreider who is an excellent journeyman LW at this point in his career (1 All-star appearance in his 11 year career) and a RW to be named later because that's always what the Rangers have going into the season.

 

Seriously, the Rangers are a good team but they have no business being in the top 4 conversation even if they keep making trades at the deadline to try to fake it.

 

More than that, it was if the core had the chops to carry the bulk of the load. There's a rotten egg mixed in there that's spoiling it though.

[Br4d]

21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

More than that, it was if the core had the chops to carry the bulk of the load. There's a rotten egg mixed in there that's spoiling it though.

 

Looking back at the two seasons post-Covid the thing that stands out to me is how much the Rangers lived and died by their powerplay.

 

I think you have to be a better even strength team to be seriously in the conversation.  Last year Shesterkin carried the Rangers on his back for a lot of the year.  This year the Rangers took half the season to get going and then promptly got disrupted after the two RW acquisitions that shifted the dynamics again.

 

I'm not going to blame Kane for the disruption because after a few good games with Tarasenko the Rangers had a bad streak also just before Kane arrived.

 

Edit: I just realized that Chytil went cold right after Tarasenko got here and never picked it back up this season.  It was like the kid line and Chytil were in the spotlight and the Rangers were sizzling and then suddenly the focus shifted and all the sizzle was gone.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Br4d

[Gravesy]

8 hours ago, The Dude said:

But what he is, isn't what the team needs.

 

He isn't anything right now.

 

They need him to have a niche. Energy guy. Set up man. Grinder. Speedster. Shooter. Being capable of PKing. He's none of that. 

 

And not for nothing,  but hasn't he spent the last 2-3 months on the PP? When he was first put there, he got some results,  being a Kreider-lite, net front presence and deflecting shots. Where'd that go? 

 

It's like he accomplishes a feat, and then that's good enough for him. One and done, then he's back to being a passenger that really doesn't do anything.  

 

The only reason to keep him, is in hopes that he matures or a real coach can tap into that noggin and get some sort of identity out of him that kicks him up a few notches above this nothing player he is right now. 

 

I just don't see it. Hopefully another GM does and the Rangers can move on, while addressing a need. 

 

I mean, maybe my timeline is off here. But as I recall, he got some time on PP1 and did ok as a net front presence. It was a short period though, and was done as a project when Kane arrived? 

Like I've said, I'm not trying to white knight for Lafreniere. I agree with most if not all of the criticism. 

I'm just not entirely sure there's great value to be had in trading him at this point. 

And, for now and to the contrary, the value play for me seems to be keeping him around at a low cost. You can scoff at the 40 point thing all you want, but it's still 40 points, from a 21 year old, playing predominantly on the 3rd line with similarly disappointing young players and minimal PP time. If he can do that, with all his flaws, I'm not yet willing to accept there isn't a 50+ point upside there - however small you want to say the chance of that upside becoming reality is.

That is until someone shows me a trade scenario that I like. If there's real value to be had from trading him I wouldn't be against it. But I have a hard time seeing it.

 

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Gravesy said:

I mean, maybe my timeline is off here. But as I recall, he got some time on PP1 and did ok as a net front presence. It was a short period though, and was done as a project when Kane arrived? 

Like I've said, I'm not trying to white knight for Lafreniere. I agree with most if not all of the criticism. 

I'm just not entirely sure there's great value to be had in trading him at this point. 

And, for now and to the contrary, the value play for me seems to be keeping him around at a low cost. You can scoff at the 40 point thing all you want, but it's still 40 points, from a 21 year old, playing predominantly on the 3rd line with similarly disappointing young players and minimal PP time. If he can do that, with all his flaws, I'm not yet willing to accept there isn't a 50+ point upside there - however small you want to say the chance of that upside becoming reality is.

That is until someone shows me a trade scenario that I like. If there's real value to be had from trading him I wouldn't be against it. But I have a hard time seeing it.

 

Most of the people aren't even looking at the point totals and they're just looking at what they see on the ice, and it isn't much.

 

But that point of the argument is continually ignored. The fact that he's not fast enough strong enough doesn't shoot hard enough doesn't have enough creativity isn't a good enough passer... Just gets glossed over.

 

Once again, look at across the river at Jack Hughes. The difference is not power play time lol. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Pete

[siddious]

Vally nailed it on the head on his podcast with Staple.. I’m paraphrasing but basically:

 

”put away the golf clubs, hit the gym and dedicate yourself to hockey this off season” 

 

for Vally to say something like that I think it’s quite clear conditioning is still an issue with this guy as well as maturity. 

 

the silver lining to all this is that Vally said he probably cost himself money for his next contract (miller too) with their playoff performances. 

[Pete]

11 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

There's a rotten egg mixed in there that's spoiling it though.

Yea Trocheck sucks. Even went into game seven with a defeatist attitude.