It's Time to Have the Lafrenière Conversation

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

In terms of being blown away, I mean blown away relative to his current worth. I agree with what's been mentioned that a mid-1st and 3rd is probably fair and expected market value, but it just doesn't move the needle for me at the moment.

 

With respect to Othmann, I'm not falling into this trap of him being an answer to anything. I'm going to choose to learn from the past that you cannot bank on kids to do anything. I like what I've seen and heard, other than lack of real skating ability which sounds awfully familiar, but a year in the AHL sounds more appropriate.

 

 

...but Laugh does? Again, why does any of this need to move the needle at all? The goal should be to better balance the roster, not emphatically "win" trades.

 

This is a complete hypothetical, but if the Rangers tomorrow could flip Laugh in a deal for Jack Quinn or Arthur Kaliyev, then add Othmann to the team, do you not agree that likely makes the Rangers roster a more balanced one, or improves their odds at succeeding in the playoffs?

 

Also, I'm not suggesting Othmann is an answer. That's entirely the problem with this situation we're in. You're viewing each of these players in a vacuum. I'm not. I'm trying to solve the big picture. Othmann simply doesn't carry the same expectations that Lafreniere does, even in the exact same position on the roster, and his game probably comes with added elements that'll make him noticeable when he isn't scoring, which I don't expect him to do a ton of early in his career anyway.

 

But even if Othmann isn't the guy, my scenario still works as a potential net positive with a stopgap in place of Laf — again, someone with lowered expectations who can give the team what they need out of a better constructed third line. Someone like... Benoit Pouliot.

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

The guys I'm comparing him to are guys like Benoit Pouliot and Steve Bernier, who were both taken high, but ended up having long NHL careers as bottom-six journeymen. Pouliot averaged 17 goals a season and 35 points a season. Bernier averaged 14 goals and 30 points. Lafreniere is currently averaging 18 goals and 35 points, so he's only slightly better than Pouliot (in goal scoring).

 

I just don't see anything about his game to suggest or even hint at the odds you're assigning to 50 points, let alone 60 or 70. Like, at all. Laugh has no elite tools whatsoever. No shot, no speed, no elite skating ability, no high-end passing/vision. He looks just like Pouliot and Bernier, only a little smaller in frame.

 

If you were asking me to run the same exercise, it looks like this:

 

No growth: 55%

50 points: 25%

60 points: 15%

70 points: 4%

More: 1%

 

Yeah, I mean we've both adjusted expectations well off 1OA, you've just adjusted further away than me. I truly would be shocked if he wasn't at least a 50-60 point player annually.

 

For a second, just say you agree with my percentages. Now, I'd follow that up and say I'm not a proponent of waiting for a "probable" 50-60 point player to blossom when it could sandbag some Cup runs and primes on our team (namely Fox, Shesterkin, and Zibanejad), but as I mentioned, as long as Panarin is a $12M bum, the team isn't winning in the playoffs. If their hands are tied with Panarin, I'm basically resigning myself to the fact the Rangers won't win barring a miraculous change in fortune, and I'll be content seeing where Lafreniere ends up for after Panarin fucks off into the sunset.

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Yeah, I mean we've both adjusted expectations well off 1OA, you've just adjusted further away than me. I truly would be shocked if he wasn't at least a 50-60 point player annually.

 

For a second, just say you agree with my percentages. Now, I'd follow that up and say I'm not a proponent of waiting for a "probable" 50-60 point player to blossom when it could sandbag some Cup runs and primes on our team (namely Fox, Shesterkin, and Zibanejad), but as I mentioned, as long as Panarin is a $12M bum, the team isn't winning in the playoffs. If their hands are tied with Panarin, I'm basically resigning myself to the fact the Rangers won't win barring a miraculous change in fortune, and I'll be content seeing where Lafreniere ends up for after Panarin fucks off into the sunset.

 

Mine are adjusted based on what I see. Yours, as far as I can see, are based off hope. I just see no logical reason to buy into your idea of him as a 50- to 60-point player because it's not supported by the data. He's shown mostly incremental growth year-over-year. Combine that with what we know about the aging curve, and yeah, maybe he breaks 50~ points, but it's probably a career year as he heads toward free agency. I see no reason to justifiably believe it's going to be a baseline going forward.

 

As to your second point, I kinda see your thinking, but this reads like a coping mechanism more than it does strategy. It essentially reads to me like "I don't think they can win with Panarin, so I'm just gonna throw in big on Lafreniere and do what I normally would never, which is to hope that a "probable" 50-point player will magically blossom."

 

Again, big picture — why do we have to accept either of these propositions? Work both angles. If Panarin has to be around a while longer because of his deal (and that's probably true), do what you can to better balance the roster while he's still here to make him less of a requirement for success. Why can't that include the idea of swapping Laugh for someone who can also be counted on in the playoffs? Laugh sure can't.

[Br4d]

Lafreniere is a 50/60 pt player right now if he got some real time on the PP.

 

I get that this is loading the dice for him but Chris Kreider has had those loaded dice for almost his entire career with the Rangers.

 

Just food for thought.

[Phil]

6 minutes ago, Br4d said:

Lafreniere is a 50/60 pt player right now if he got some real time on the PP.

 

I get that this is loading the dice for him but Chris Kreider has had those loaded dice for almost his entire career with the Rangers.

 

Just food for thought.

 

Maybe. But he's not likely to get that on this Rangers team. This is actually a reason to trade him, not keep him, unless you think you can offload Panarin really soon.

[Br4d]

Go look at Chris Kreider's career on Hockey reference and ask yourself what it would have turned into if he didn't get the consistent PP time.

 

I think he would be a no-name 3rd winger somewhere if he'd been blocked the way Lafreniere has.

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

...but Laugh does? Again, why does any of this need to move the needle at all? The goal should be to better balance the roster, not emphatically "win" trades.

 

This is a complete hypothetical, but if the Rangers tomorrow could flip Laugh in a deal for Jack Quinn or Arthur Kaliyev, then add Othmann to the team, do you not agree that likely makes the Rangers roster a more balanced one, or improves their odds at succeeding in the playoffs?

 

Also, I'm not suggesting Othmann is an answer. That's entirely the problem with this situation we're in. You're viewing each of these players in a vacuum. I'm not. I'm trying to solve the big picture. Othmann simply doesn't carry the same expectations that Lafreniere does, even in the exact same position on the roster, and his game probably comes with added elements that'll make him noticeable when he isn't scoring, which I don't expect him to do a ton of early in his career anyway.

 

But even if Othmann isn't the guy, my scenario still works as a potential net positive with a stopgap in place of Laf — again, someone with lowered expectations who can give the team what they need out of a better constructed third line. Someone like... Benoit Pouliot.

 

See my post above. I think this comes down to whether or not you think the team can win with Panarin or not. I don't think they can.

 

No. I wouldn't trade Lafreniere for either of those players. Whether the Rangers win or lose comes down to their best players being their best players. We aren't talking about this right now if Panarin and Zibanejad even had 2 more goals a piece. Literally that's all we're talking about. As it stands, with the core the way it is, I don't see a difference between Lafreniere and someone like Vesey elevated again, and Othmann/Quinn. Titanic chairs.

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Mine are adjusted based on what I see. Yours, as far as I can see, are based off hope. I just see no logical reason to buy into your idea of him as a 50- to 60-point player because it's not supported by the data. He's shown mostly incremental growth year-over-year. Combine that with what we know about the aging curve, and yeah, maybe he breaks 50~ points, but it's probably a career year as he heads toward free agency. I see no reason to justifiably believe it's going to be a baseline going forward.

 

As to your second point, I kinda see your thinking, but this reads like a coping mechanism more than it does strategy. It essentially reads to me like "I don't think they can win with Panarin, so I'm just gonna throw in big on Lafreniere and do what I normally would never, which is to hope that a "probable" 50-point player will magically blossom."

 

Again, big picture — why do we have to accept either of these propositions? Work both angles. If Panarin has to be around a while longer because of his deal (and that's probably true), do what you can to better balance the roster while he's still here to make him less of a requirement for success. Why can't that include the idea of swapping Laugh for someone who can also be counted on in the playoffs? Laugh sure can't.

 

I adjusted to where I'm at based off what he's already produced, what his ice time growth looks like in the next 4 years, natural physical growth into his mid 20s, and corresponding confidence that should come with those changes. I feel like your adjustments are anticipating him remaining an immature 21 y.o. (physically and probably mentally - it's not a secret he acts a bit immature, ask @jsrangers avatar) for the rest of his career, which kind of goes against biology itself. This exercise was helpful because I understand why you want to trade him at all costs based on your projections. I would too if I shared that outlook. We agree he's not a 1OA. We just disagree on how far down his ceiling has dropped.

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

See my post above. I think this comes down to whether or not you think the team can win with Panarin or not. I don't think they can.

 

No. I wouldn't trade Lafreniere for either of those players. Whether the Rangers win or lose comes down to their best players being their best players. We aren't talking about this right now if Panarin and Zibanejad even had 2 more goals a piece. Literally that's all we're talking about. As it stands, with the core the way it is, I don't see a difference between Lafreniere and someone like Vesey elevated again, and Othmann/Quinn. Titanic chairs.

 

I don't think they can win with Panarin either. I just don't see that as any reason at all to believe in Laugh, because he's done very little to suggest that he's someone worth believing in. I'm just not following you in this line of thinking. The two are completely unrelated in this respect.

Even if you subtract Panarin today and insert Lafreniere into his role/position, and Laugh becomes the 60-point player you think he is, the same fundamental issues with the team persist, minus 30~ regular season points. They're a fundamentally flawed club because they're improperly balanced. They lack the cultural grinders required to win in the playoffs when games tighten and players need to fight to get to the middle of the ice, which is why they are so easy to shut down. Poor 5v5 play (largely because of that cultural deficiency), elite PP, and elite goaltending. Works in the regular season when the opponent is different every night. Fails spectacularly in the postseason when teams can counter it and grind the Rangers to a hault.

 

Lafreniere might find extra scoring in the regular season with Panarin's PP time added, but he'll still be the same perimeter player the rest of the top-six/nine are in the post-season, so the end result is exactly the same.

 

This is why I keep coming back to moving what you can (probably not Panarin yet) to balance the lineup. All en route to building a team like — and I fucking hate that I am typing this with the fire of a thousand suns — the Devils. More USHL. Less SEL. More North American, hard-nosed, take-it-to-them. Fewer bro-ish nice guys who are fun to cover and watch in the regular season, but who get snuffed out when the going gets tough.

[Valriera]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

No one is giving you another shot at first overall for a couple of first- and second-overall picks who have national media publicly questioning if they'll ever develop to a level commiserate with their draft status. Any team you'd be calling asking would sooner just keep their pick and try to draft their own high-ceiling prospect who they'll have a longer leash on and an opportunity to develop in-house.

 

This is why I keep coming back to the thinking that, as fans, we need to resign ourselves to the idea that a trade for either of these players is unlikely to bring back something of significance. @Morphinity 2.0 brought up the Dach trade return (#13 and #60-something), which is a great comparison.

 

My guess is that's probably in the ballpark of what a Laugh return looks like, while Kakko is probably more of a my middle six for yours type of trade.

I don’t think both for a 1OA is out of the question at all. Maybe not Bedard but certainly in a different year like last year. We’re talking about two elite prospects. You don’t think Montreal ships 1OA last year for them? I don’t think it’s out of the question. 2OA? 
 

I just would rather keep the upside on them if we’re exchanging them like for like to try to make this team better. These guys aren’t the problem with this team. They might be the next team’s problem but they’re not this team’s problem and replacing them with someone else is not going to matter for this team’s cup chances. 
 

So for me it’s trade them for the next team’s benefit or turn them into the next team.

[Phil]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CrvpSWXt86Q/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

 

Spot the lie.

 

Spoiler: there aren't any.

[Scott]

24 minutes ago, Br4d said:

Go look at Chris Kreider's career on Hockey reference and ask yourself what it would have turned into if he didn't get the consistent PP time.

 

I think he would be a no-name 3rd winger somewhere if he'd been blocked the way Lafreniere has.

I never really understand the "what if".  The reality is he is one of the premier net front pp presence  in the league and has been for several years.  Wanna pick apart other parts of his game, sure.  I don't think there's an argument to be made to take away from his value on the PP and his current contract value (compared to most others on this team and many others).  I think if you were to deal Kreider and throw Laugh in his spot on the PP the PP suffers drastically which carries this teams offence (when the team scores goals).  Then again I'm solidly in the corner that there's simply not enough turd polish out there to turn Laugh into much of anything for a 1OA.

[The Dude]

7 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

So let's say Laffy has a 10% chance of fulfilling his potential as a #1OA right now.  That's probably ballpark for where a guy taken #1 who isn't producing winds up after year 3 in the NHL.

 

What exactly are the Rangers going to get for him in a trade that equals that unlikely but possible chance of a star player?

 

I just don't see how letting him go for less than a 1st round pick is acceptable at this point and I'm not sure the Rangers will see that kind of return.

 

Obviously if the Canadiens are willing to give up a 2024 1st plus something for him we should take the trade but other than that it's better to hold onto our 3rd line LW who might turn into something big down the road.

 

You think Ottawa regrets trading Mika Zibanejad right about now?

It's time to let go of the 1OA hopes and pass that hope onto his next team.

 

Cash out. He's not going to be a top line player here. He's not going to get that chance here. His lack of identity doesn't fit here. His output on the stat sheet is easily replaced.

 

The spot he currently resides in is better suited for our aspiring prospects, who bring a different mindset and game style than he does. They need a player who plays bigger. Who plays mean. Who plays gritty. Who plays pesky.

 

Othmann or Cuylle can walk in and ATLEAST bring that, while learning and developing their games. They check the boxes of what is missing from this forward group. If they can do that and put up the numbers Lafrenière and Kakko did in their first few years ... the team does get better.  It's less of the same. Its affordable. Its needed. 

 

What would the return be? Cruise the bottom dwelling teams rosters. Cruise Colorados roster, or a team that should have went further in the playoffs. Pick a vet RW that brings grit and a bit of scoring ability. Think if said team wants to take a step back and try a reclamation type project player, who really just never got his wheels going in a situation that wouldn't afford him the opportunity to do so. Think if said team would eat salary on an aging vet. Make the trade. 

 

Lafrenière to Montreal for Brendan Gallagher or Josh Anderson at 50% retention (3.5 mill ish cap hit) and a 2nd round pick.

 

Someone of that level. Not a star, just a hard nosed player that brings grit with top 6 prowess. There's probably better examples or better players, but the realization needs to be made, that he's 3 years removed from 1OA status. He hasn't worked here and the Rangers arent getting a max return on this kid. His 1OA status is the selling point for the team acquiring him. It's also the Rangers selling point. He's gotta go. Time to move on. Take the L. 

 

 

[The Dude]

7 hours ago, LindG1000 said:

Devil's advocate here - if opening a natural roster spot for Othmann as a 3LW just doing to him what we did to Lafreniere?

I'll jump in and say no. Different types io players. Othmann can play more of an energy game first and then ease his way into the skill part.  He can PK. He can pester. If he's not scoring, he still has a use and wouldn't be out of place if he had to slide down to the 4th line if he's not good enough for 3rd line minutes.  He CAN develop his trade on the lower lines, while Lafrenière apparently can't. 

[The Dude]

7 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

If some are expecting Othmann to be close to the second coming of Jagr or something, you're going to be very disapointed. lol

I'm thinking more of a l Marchand type. 

[Sharpshooter]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm thinking more of a l Marchand type. 

Not bad. I wouldn't complain. lol

[RangersIn7]

All I’ll say is that you’ll probably really want him from age 24-30.

 

[Blueshirts1926]

Dump Gallant and bring in Q. Send packing Laf and Kakko and bring in Caulfield as he would thrive under Q

[Scott]

42 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

All I’ll say is that you’ll probably really want him from age 24-30.

 

based on what R7?

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, Blueshirts1926 said:

Dump Gallant and bring in Q. Send packing Laf and Kakko and bring in Caulfield as he would thrive under Q

Why not McDavid? He'd thrive, too. 

[Morphinity 2.0]

19 minutes ago, Blueshirts1926 said:

Dump Gallant and bring in Q. Send packing Laf and Kakko and bring in Caulfield as he would thrive under Q

Yeah, let's just bring in Caulfield. You got his agent's number?

[Richter35]

I keep asking myself, how could the scouting be so wrong on this guy ? J.D. was giddy with the prospect of getting him. What were they looking at ?

[Morphinity 2.0]

Just now, Richter35 said:

I keep asking myself, how could the scouting be so wrong on this guy ? J.D. was giddy with the prospect of getting him. What were they looking at ?

No idea. The usual refrain is that he just bigger than everyone else, even at a young age. But that doesn't speak to how the scouts would gush about his hockey sense, vision, and the "complete package". But he's none of that. There's nothing there.

[Phil]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I adjusted to where I'm at based off what he's already produced, what his ice time growth looks like in the next 4 years, natural physical growth into his mid 20s, and corresponding confidence that should come with those changes. I feel like your adjustments are anticipating him remaining an immature 21 y.o. (physically and probably mentally - it's not a secret he acts a bit immature, ask @jsrangers avatar) for the rest of his career, which kind of goes against biology itself. This exercise was helpful because I understand why you want to trade him at all costs based on your projections. I would too if I shared that outlook. We agree he's not a 1OA. We just disagree on how far down his ceiling has dropped.

 

I just don't see it. Arthur Staple and Vally were talking about him a ton on the latest episode of the Garden Faithful podcast and I think Staple nailed it:

 

There are simply too many hurdles in front of him that are unlikely to change any time soon. It just feels like a huge waste of time to even continue the experiment. In a lot of ways this was doomed to fail from the start with Panarin and Kreider locked in ahead of him. But I just don't see anything from him as a player to suggest he's in line for the kind of progress you're hoping for.

[Richter35]

Sure there have been 10A busts before, but can anyone find a case where the player and the alleged skill set were so far apart ?