Y'all Wanna See a Dead Body? Chris Kreider Is the Best First-round Pick in 30 Years

[Drew a Penalty]

I don’t think this fanbase can take a rebuild at all. We got through two years of one and people were climbing up walls.

[Br4d]

14 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

But it's not fans. It's the owner not willing to stomach not having fans in the building, buying jerseys, etc. The fans themselves, I think, would mostly be OK with a "true" rebuild. It's not fun, but a good chunk of them would be willing to wait it out. They actually did a really great job with The Letter of basically priming them for it. It was just seriously short-lived.

 

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

This generalization stinks though. Tell the Devils it‘s not when Hughes was garbage his first couple of seasons and they let him cook in the pros anyway, or the Sens when Stutzle sucked his first couple of seasons. Neither were actually ready for the pros, and both franchises let them play important minutes because they had zero expectations of winning. They wanted to develop them and they were ok with that.

 

You get what you pay for and what we're getting is exactly what Dolan and Drury have paid for.

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying the owner won't put up with an empty building and in the next sentence you're saying the fans would be fine with it...So then there should be no empty building. Which is it?

 

Sorry, let me clarify:

 

Yes, fans probably wouldn't buy a ton of tickets, but I don't consider that a form of not accepting a rebuild. I guess it's a poor way of showing it, maybe, but I think it's logically consistent to not continue your season tickets, lets say, but still mostly back the idea of a rebuild, because odds are, that same fan will eventually be back, ready to buy tickets again when they feel the product is ready.

 

But I don't think we ever get to this point because ownership simply will not stomach that fact for very long. Every "rebuild" is self-sabotaged by signing star players who do sell tickets. They did it with Jagr. They did it with Panarin. They'll do it forever, for as long as Dolan owns the team.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

This generalization stinks though. Tell the Devils it‘s not when Hughes was garbage his first couple of seasons and they let him cook in the pros anyway, or the Sens when Stutzle sucked his first couple of seasons. Neither were actually ready for the pros, and both franchises let them play important minutes because they had zero expectations of winning. They wanted to develop them and they were ok with that.

No, there were COVID rules in play, the same as the Rangers had to deal with. The AHL wasn't an option for any/everyone. They showed they didn't need AHL time. Kakko and Laugh never did.

 

And I won't even get into the fact the teams themselves were in different lifecycles. It's not apples to apples and people need to stop acting like every team is in the same position to do the same things with their prospects, because they're not.

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, Drew a Penalty said:

I don’t think this fanbase can take a rebuild at all. We got through two years of one and people were climbing up walls.

 

If this is the case then we deserve the team we're getting.  Instant gratification is worth exactly one season of semi-good results.  Repeat Ad Nauseum...

[Drew a Penalty]

1 minute ago, Br4d said:

 

If this is the case then we deserve the team we're getting.  Instant gratification is worth exactly one season of semi-good results.  Repeat Ad Nauseum...

NY sports, particularly the Yankees, have provided some with the sense that you can buy your way or speed your way through a process. Some around here only want to “win” if it means spiting the Devils or Islanders. You don’t build your team out of jealousy. 

[jsm7302]

Signing Panarin jacked a bit up. Kept the team competitive but all in all spent a lot of money which ended up logjamming the LW spot where we drafted most of our top tier draft picks post rebuild. Should've spent that money on another premier center as opposed to LW and the team may be sitting a bit differently. Probably more poised to take steps forward as opposed to the ugly step back last year.

[Pete]

37 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

If this is the case then we deserve the team we're getting.  Instant gratification is worth exactly one season of semi-good results.  Repeat Ad Nauseum...

But this is impatience/instant gratification. Both kids have shit to work on and would be fine in the A. What's the rush?

  

5 hours ago, Br4d said:

Cuylle would be on the third line of most of the competitive and all of the uncompetitive teams by now.  He'd have gotten there last season and for better or worse he'd be getting minutes now.  Othman would definitely make most teams out of camp this year in a middle 6 role as they tried to get him going full speed.

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Pete

[Drew a Penalty]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

But this is impatience/instant gratification. Both kids have shit to work on and would be fine in the A. What's the rush?

  

 

Whoa. Yeah, I skimmed over this I guess.

 

Let’s pump the brakes on Cuylle a little bit. He had a good AHL season, especially down the stretch, but he’s a guy most teams are probably integrating on a fourth line not third. Third line is his maximum potential if anything. He’s a heavy body who gets to dirty areas and can provide some solid but not standout defense. None of his skills are standout. How effective he’ll be is dependent on how much of a solider he can make himself.

[Phil]

45 minutes ago, Drew a Penalty said:

NY sports, particularly the Yankees, have provided some with the sense that you can buy your way or speed your way through a process. Some around here only want to “win” if it means spiting the Devils or Islanders. You don’t build your team out of jealousy. 

 

You can. It's just rare, which I think is your point anyway.

[RJWantsTheCup]

37 minutes ago, Drew a Penalty said:

Whoa. Yeah, I skimmed over this I guess.

 

Let’s pump the brakes on Cuylle a little bit. He had a good AHL season, especially down the stretch, but he’s a guy most teams are probably integrating on a fourth line not third. Third line is his maximum potential if anything. He’s a heavy body who gets to dirty areas and can provide some solid but not standout defense. None of his skills are standout. How effective he’ll be is dependent on how much of a solider he can make himself.

Cuylle, Bonino, Vesey or Goodrow could be a good 4th line.

[Drew a Penalty]

54 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

You can. It's just rare, which I think is your point anyway.

Right. Cap league. Embrace the cyclical nature of it all. Rebuilds are how you stock up on talent at more reasonable rates.
 

I don’t give a fuck about the Devils or Islanders success. Are the fans annoying? Absolutely. But anyone who thinks either of them were destined to be permanent Mickey Mouse franchises is living in a dream world. They’re going to be better than the Rangers at points. That’s just reality. Be an adult and fucking suck it up. It shouldn’t affect the team’s approach to business. The Rangers aren’t in competition with the Devils and Islanders, they’re in competition with the entire fucking league. People accuse Devils and Islanders fans of an inferiority complex but a subset of Rangers fans are in a permanent state of denial. Don’t care about what they do if it means sloppily trying to surpass them.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Except they do suck at drafting. Look at the list in the OP again. It spans a stretch of 30+ years — well beyond the Gorton years. Gorton's selections are some of the worst, no doubt, but this has been an organizational problem for as long as I've been a fan.

 

In a vacuum yes those drafts all look bad but when you look realistically at who was taken around the players we picked, with the exception of a couple of picks, there tends to not be a ton.

 

Recently we swung and missed on guys like Lias and Kravstov. Blame the staff for those ones, I'm with you, those were brutal misses with some VERY good players taken afterwards that we missed out on because the Gordie Clarke team were more interested in proving they were smarter than the rest of the league than just simply taking a good player.

 

But its tough to fault an office for not taking franchise-changing players in the picks from the mid-teens to 20's. most players in those ranges don't tend to amount to much and from 2005-12, we had more good picks than bad picks.

 

in that time frame, removing 07 because we don't need to argue a kid that died was a bad pick, of those 7 drafts we probably took the best player we could have in that range 4 of the times

 

and one of those 3 others, Del Zotto, has had a long NHL career so its hard to argue a guy who's played that long was necesarilly a bad pick. Carlsson taken at 28 (8 picks back) would certainly have been a better pick but again, at that end of the first round its basically a crapshoot anyway

[Drew a Penalty]

26 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Cuylle, Bonino, Vesey or Goodrow could be a good 4th line.

For sure. I just don’t know that you need to push him ahead of Pitlick or Belzile unless he really stands out in camp. It’s not like he’s undeniably ready. 

[Phil]

2 hours ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

 

In a vacuum yes those drafts all look bad but when you look realistically at who was taken around the players we picked, with the exception of a couple of picks, there tends to not be a ton.

 

Recently we swung and missed on guys like Lias and Kravstov. Blame the staff for those ones, I'm with you, those were brutal misses with some VERY good players taken afterwards that we missed out on because the Gordie Clarke team were more interested in proving they were smarter than the rest of the league than just simply taking a good player.

 

But its tough to fault an office for not taking franchise-changing players in the picks from the mid-teens to 20's. most players in those ranges don't tend to amount to much and from 2005-12, we had more good picks than bad picks.

 

in that time frame, removing 07 because we don't need to argue a kid that died was a bad pick, of those 7 drafts we probably took the best player we could have in that range 4 of the times

 

and one of those 3 others, Del Zotto, has had a long NHL career so its hard to argue a guy who's played that long was necesarilly a bad pick. Carlsson taken at 28 (8 picks back) would certainly have been a better pick but again, at that end of the first round its basically a crapshoot anyway

 

This is very fair and something I admit I really didn't take into consideration, and I should have. A better exercise is probably to look at top-10 picks only, but man, they've just had so few of those because the team is never very bad (but also never very good).

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

Agree with a lot of this post. I think there are some generalizations being made (by people who don't actually watch the players right now, mind you) and they go "A first round pick should be in the league by X, second round pick by Y" with little regard to the players being human beings with things to work on, "development" some would say...

 

This is why you can't rebuild in NY. Lack of patience with these kids, and the misunderstanding that the NHL is not a developmental league. A player coming from college or junior may need time in the AHL. Some of us were begging to have Laugh and Kakko sent to the AHL to work on things like skating, which is not worked on during the regular season at the NHL level for obvious reasons.

 

100% agree on the myopic expectations.

[Br4d]

35 minutes ago, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

 

100% agree on the myopic expectations.

 

Maybe it's just me but I think the Rangers should be able to develop more than 1 forward a decade from the draft/farm system.

 

Myopic?

 

You and I are not watching the same team.

[The Dude]

12 hours ago, Br4d said:

Think of it this way: if the Rangers did not get the #1 and #2 overall picks a few years ago this would be one of the oldest veteran teams in the NHL and we'd likely have shored up the competitive base by acquiring a few more relatively high ticket players and trading a few more guys who might break out because they weren't ready to go right now.

 

Look at the picks of the last few years.  Buried at the AHL level and having a very hard time getting a real look with the Rangers.

 

Cuylle would be on the third line of most of the competitive and all of the uncompetitive teams by now.  He'd have gotten there last season and for better or worse he'd be getting minutes now.  Othman would definitely make most teams out of camp this year in a middle 6 role as they tried to get him going full speed.

 

You can't keep doing the same thing over and over again and not expect the wheels to fall off at some point.

I feel like they ARENT  doing the same thing. As noted, Kakko and Lafrenière were rushed into the NHL. Both likely would have benefited from stints in the AHL. 

 

Cuylle got some games in last season. Everyone but me says Othmann needs to start the season in the A. Jones has been afforded some opportunities,  but they also wasted an ELC contract year by playing him 10+ games at the end of a meaningless season after he signed his first contract. Schneider was in the A and then also rushed uo out of necessity and good play. Miller... rushed... 

 

It is different these days. Its not really the typical Rangers. They're kinda all over the place with the young players. I think they're settling down and not forcing any issues.  They're learning or adapting to how they fucked up Kakko and Lafrenière.

 

There's not many place holders that can't be knocked out of their spot by any of the kids you mentioned. Unlike Lafrenière who gets the excuse of being blocked by Kreider,  Panarin and empty donut boxes. 

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

12 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

Maybe it's just me but I think the Rangers should be able to develop more than 1 forward a decade from the draft/farm system.

 

Myopic?

 

You and I are not watching the same team.

 

If you read my post, I was replying to to Pete's comments regarding fan expectations; what does that have to do with the team?

 

 

[fletch]

21 hours ago, Pete said:

Agree with a lot of this post. I think there are some generalizations being made (by people who don't actually watch the players right now, mind you) and they go "A first round pick should be in the league by X, second round pick by Y" with little regard to the players being human beings with things to work on, "development" some would say...

 

This is why you can't rebuild in NY. Lack of patience with these kids, and the misunderstanding that the NHL is not a developmental league. A player coming from college or junior may need time in the AHL. Some of us were begging to have Laugh and Kakko sent to the AHL to work on things like skating, which is not worked on during the regular season at the NHL level for obvious reasons.

 

21 hours ago, Phil said:

 

I'd argue that the reason you can't rebuild in NY has nothing to do with fans — it has everything to do with ownership, who have no stomach for any kind of prolonged losing because prolonged losing doesn't sell tickets. The "rebuild" the Rangers just went through screams of exactly the amount of time Dolan would sit by and watch for, which was about two years, maybe. And even then, he wasn't going to stand by and watch Panarin or Trouba or whomever walk past his team when they were made available.

 

20 hours ago, Drew a Penalty said:

I don’t think this fanbase can take a rebuild at all. We got through two years of one and people were climbing up walls.

 

Chicago had 3 Stanley Cups in 6 seasons.   Chicago and New York are both original 6 franchises, 2 of the largest US cities, and similar in media/fan attention intensity to sports teams (in my biased opinion)... Chicago is one of the closest analog to New York you are going to find.

 

Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews is probably the starting point for why the Hawks won 3 cups.  But I'd also say Chicago ownership has show a willingness to suck and go through multiple rebuilds.  New York ownership and management has prioritized remaining a playoff team with veteran acquisitions and roster construction, with incremental short-term improvements while sacrificing long-term development of young players.

 

I'd agree to 3 years of being Coyote or Senator level, worst team in NHL bad if it meant acquiring/developing the young talent to get 2 Cups in 5 years.  The problem is during those 3 years of worst-team in NHL bad is there is no guarantee that your management is going to find the generational talent to win those 2 Cups in 5 years.  After being Coyote or Senator bad, you may have a window where you are a solid playoff team, win a round or two, and never sniff a Cup during the window when your talented players are at peak performance.

 

But what the Rangers have been doing hasn't produced many Cups.  And that is frustrating.

[RJWantsTheCup]

Rangers had the chance to draft 2 generational talents, but ended up with Lafraniere & Kakko.    Normally the #1 and #2 overall will get you at least 1 generational talent.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, fletch said:

 

 

 

Chicago had 3 Stanley Cups in 6 seasons.   Chicago and New York are both original 6 franchises, 2 of the largest US cities, and similar in media/fan attention intensity to sports teams (in my biased opinion)... Chicago is one of the closest analog to New York you are going to find.

 

Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews is probably the starting point for why the Hawks won 3 cups.  But I'd also say Chicago ownership has show a willingness to suck and go through multiple rebuilds.  New York ownership and management has prioritized remaining a playoff team with veteran acquisitions and roster construction, with incremental short-term improvements while sacrificing long-term development of young players.

 

I'd agree to 3 years of being Coyote or Senator level, worst team in NHL bad if it meant acquiring/developing the young talent to get 2 Cups in 5 years.  The problem is during those 3 years of worst-team in NHL bad is there is no guarantee that your management is going to find the generational talent to win those 2 Cups in 5 years.  After being Coyote or Senator bad, you may have a window where you are a solid playoff team, win a round or two, and never sniff a Cup during the window when your talented players are at peak performance.

 

But what the Rangers have been doing hasn't produced many Cups.  And that is frustrating.

 

17 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Rangers had the chance to draft 2 generational talents, but ended up with Lafraniere & Kakko.    Normally the #1 and #2 overall will get you at least 1 generational talent.

This. Bingo.

 

And not only that, the Wirtz family is notoriously cheap and didn't want to pay their talent. That's why they sucked. Not because they were willing to do what it took to be great again. That's a recent phenomenon (them paying their talent).

[Br4d]

2 hours ago, fletch said:

 

 

But what the Rangers have been doing hasn't produced many Cups.  And that is frustrating.

 

What the Rangers have been doing is almost guaranteed to create competence without ever getting to critical mass.

 

The one Stanley Cup the Rangers have won in the last 82 years was due to a single acquisition (Mark Messier) putting the typical Rangers good team over the top.  The other key pieces were all key pieces but the Rangers never sniff a legitimate championship opportunity without Messier.

 

The way this team gets over the top is to get Connor McDavid in 3 years when he becomes available.  Until then we're just flailing, fairly successfully, as befits the invested cap figure and undoubted trades at the deadline.  Obviously there might be a couple more high-profile free agent or trade opportunities that would accomplish the same thing but the point is that is *all* there are.  We can keep acquiring good veteran players forever and most of them will just fit right into what we've got going right now.

 

That's the most depressing thing about the successful failure of the GG years.  We probably hit the high water mark but we're going to need to do same old same old for another couple of years before that's clear.  Only it won't be same old same old.  It'll be same old, same old minus 10 pts or so.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Br4d

[fletch]

1 hour ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Rangers had the chance to draft 2 generational talents, but ended up with Lafraniere & Kakko.    Normally the #1 and #2 overall will get you at least 1 generational talent.

 

1 hour ago, Pete said:

 

This. Bingo.

 

And not only that, the Wirtz family is notoriously cheap and didn't want to pay their talent. That's why they sucked. Not because they were willing to do what it took to be great again. That's a recent phenomenon (them paying their talent).

It's easy to attack the Chicago franchise for the organizational culture.  The abuse of Kyle Beach while Quenneville was coach is probably still keeping Quenneville from having an NHL coaching job. 

 

Attacking the Chicago organization is ignoring the main points of my post.

1. It is possible to rebuild in an Original Six, large city.

2. Appropriate to this thread, Rangers haven't acquired, drafted, and/or developed generational young talent.

 

These points are relevant because of how the Rangers organization and management have chosen to construct a team roster and coaching staff.

[Karan]

1 hour ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Rangers had the chance to draft 2 generational talents, but ended up with Lafraniere & Kakko.    Normally the #1 and #2 overall will get you at least 1 generational talent.

 

Generational talent is bit of a stretch. Those only come around every decade or so. But at the very least between the #1 and #2 picks, the Rangers should've landed with at least one bonafide superstar player, which wasn't the case.