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

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

 

It's not unrealistic to expect a franchise that is as consistently good as the Rangers to win a cup now and then.

 

The Rangers never get over the top because you usually can't acquire championship caliber players in free agency or via trade.  Those players are usually not available that way, you have to draft them and develop them and win the thing by good old homegrown cooking.

 

The one cup the Rangers have won in the last 82 years was because a leader capable of taking them there actually became available in a rare event as the Oilers championship teams were being broken up.

 

Since then we've had the same routine that has plagued the Rangers since the early 70's - acquiring good veteran players via trade or free agency and then failing to get over the top because if those players were capable of that they wouldn't have been on the market in the first place.

 

Patrick Kane last year was like the poster boy for why this doesn't work.  He came over from a bad team late in his career and couldn't help the Rangers.  If he'd still been capable of adding the win to the roster he would never have been available.

A cup every now and then, I agree. @fletch  and @BrooksBurner are literally saying they want a 3peat. Good luck with that.

 

Everything else in your post, I generally agree with but it's tainted by recency bias. The Rangers were in a winnable Cup Final not all that long ago, and are generally a playoff team every year, with a few exceptions. As @Long live the King said, winning the Cup is hard. It's not a cop-out, it's reality.

[Br4d]

The Rangers have actually acquired two championship caliber players in the last 7 years via trade, those being Mika Zibanejad and Adam Fox.  Neither of them is a championship caliber leader though and that's what they're going to need now.

 

The scary thing is that of the young guys on the roster the only one that looks like he might have that quality is Lafreniere and so far his performance has not been at the level that would allow him to naturally lead the Rangers to a cup.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Br4d

[fletch]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

A cup every now and then, I agree. @fletch  and @BrooksBurner are literally saying they want a 3peat. Good luck with that.

 

Everything else in your post, I generally agree with but it's tainted by recency bias. The Rangers were in a winnable Cup Final not all that long ago, and are generally a playoff team every year, with a few exceptions. As @Long live the King said, winning the Cup is hard. It's not a cop-out, it's reality.

 

I must have struck a nerve because you continue to ignore the main points of each of my posts and instead write clever one-line snippets (to grandstand?).  It is entertaining, but ultimately not very compelling when you have to distort an opposing point of view in order to try and make points.  I've been patient with you in this thread, but am disappointed in that you would rather try and provoke a reaction rather than honestly debate some pretty transparent shortcomings with the Rangers organization.  I've provided thoughtful analysis in several points in this thread for the group to read.  I'll be interested in any thoughtful responses to my points, rather than attempts to be clever.  Let me know when you're up to it, else I'll continue to enjoy your witticisms.

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

The Rangers have actually acquired two championship caliber players in the last 7 years via trade, those being Mika Zibanejad and Adam Fox.  Neither of them is a championship caliber leader though and that's what they're going to need now.

 

The scary thing is that of the young guys on the roster the only one that looks like he might have that quality is Lafreniere and so far his performance has not been at the level that would allow him to naturally lead the Rangers to a cup.

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, fletch said:

 

I must have struck a nerve because you continue to ignore the main points of each of my posts and instead write clever one-line snippets (to grandstand?).  It is entertaining, but ultimately not very compelling when you have to distort an opposing point of view in order to try and make points.  I've been patient with you in this thread, but am disappointed in that you would rather try and provoke a reaction rather than honestly debate some pretty transparent shortcomings with the Rangers organization.  I've provided thoughtful analysis in several points in this thread for the group to read.  I'll be interested in any thoughtful responses to my points, rather than attempts to be clever.  Let me know when you're up to it, else I'll continue to enjoy your witticisms.

I've rebutted every point you made. You literally asked for a dynasty and position the Rangers as failures for not winning 3 Cups like the Hawks. 

 

I don't know what more you want. 

[BrooksBurner]

6 hours ago, Pete said:

A cup every now and then, I agree. @fletch  and @BrooksBurner are literally saying they want a 3peat. Good luck with that.

 

Everything else in your post, I generally agree with but it's tainted by recency bias. The Rangers were in a winnable Cup Final not all that long ago, and are generally a playoff team every year, with a few exceptions. As @Long live the King said, winning the Cup is hard. It's not a cop-out, it's reality.

It’s about establishing a team that is capable of winning multiple Cups. If they only win one amongst a long competitive window (Bruins?), it’s still great.

 

It’s not hard to find the commonality of the franchises that have won multiple Cups within a 5-10 year span or so. There’s nothing wrong with emulating that. If you keep shoving all in with vets, maybe you’ll hit a ‘94 season. It’s just so much less likely to hit on a flash in the pan season than the alternative of finding and developing legitimate young superstar talent to build around for repeated higher probability attempts at the Cup. Granted, it’s pretty damn hard to find that kind of talent or everyone would do it, but it’s worth committing to finding it.

[Pete]

56 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

It’s about establishing a team that is capable of winning multiple Cups. If they only win one amongst a long competitive window (Bruins?), it’s still great.

 

It’s not hard to find the commonality of the franchises that have won multiple Cups within a 5-10 year span or so. There’s nothing wrong with emulating that. If you keep shoving all in with vets, maybe you’ll hit a ‘94 season. It’s just so much less likely to hit on a flash in the pan season than the alternative of finding and developing legitimate young superstar talent to build around for repeated higher probability attempts at the Cup. Granted, it’s pretty damn hard to find that kind of talent or everyone would do it, but it’s worth committing to finding it.

I get that, but you're also acting like they didn't have competitive teams under Torts and AV. That was like 6-7 years ago. They went to the Eastern conference final last year.

 

When you have a lot of success, you're going to go through a long downturn. The Bruins are in for a rough ride over the next few years because they have nothing coming. Chicago has been bad for a few years, and they're going to be bad for a few years, even with Bedard.

 

We can sit here and complain about who makes too much money and all that, but who have the Rangers not been able to sign out of their own draft picks because they didn't have the cap room? The real travesty has been the drafting, that's it and that's all, and when you draft poorly you have to buy in free agency. And over the last few seasons, the Rangers have done really well in free agency. They're only whiff was Nemeth. Everybody else was paid what they were worth. Whether or not they needed certain players is another story (Tro vs Chytil).

 

I don't understand the thinking that the organization is a complete failure in everything they do. They were really bad at drafting and took some big swings and whiffed hard. They also drafted two duds, and whether or not they were blocked by other players, they are still nothing special because individually they are nothing special. But any team with those pics would have taken those players. Yes it would have been great to trade down and grab Stutzle but there was no team who would in reality was going to do that. 

 

Everything isn't perfect, but everything is not as bad as you guys make it. To hear you guys talk about it you'd think it was the worst run team in the league. Look at Calgary, look at Vancouver, look at Winnipeg, look at Arizona, look at Columbus, those teams are pretty poorly run across the board. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by Pete

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I get that, but you're also acting like they didn't have competitive teams under Torts and AV. That was like 6-7 years ago. They went to the Eastern conference final last year.

 

When you have a lot of success, you're going to go through a long downturn. The Bruins are in for a rough ride over the next few years because they have nothing coming. Chicago has been bad for a few years, and they're going to be bad for a few years, even with Bedard.

 

We can sit here and complain about who makes too much money and all that, but who have the Rangers not been able to sign out of their own draft picks because they didn't have the cap room? The real travesty has been the drafting, that's it and that's all, and when you draft poorly you have to buy in free agency. And over the last few seasons, the Rangers have done really well in free agency. They're only whiff was Nemeth. Everybody else was paid what they were worth. Whether or not they needed certain players is another story (Tro vs Chytil).

 

I don't understand the thinking that the organization is a complete failure in everything they do. They were really bad at drafting and took some big swings and whiffed hard. They also drafted two duds, and whether or not they were blocked by other players, they are still nothing special because individually they are nothing special. But any team with those pics would have taken those players. Yes it would have been great to trade down and grab Stutzle but there was no team who would in reality was going to do that. 

 

Everything isn't perfect, but everything is not as bad as you guys make it. To hear you guys talk about it you'd think it was the worst run team in the league. Look at Calgary, look at Vancouver, look at Winnipeg, look at Arizona, look at Columbus, those teams are pretty poorly run across the board. 

 

It's not that the Ranger's organization is a failure in everything they try to do.  Quite the opposite in terms of long-term competitive balance.  However they are indisputably a failure at putting together a cup winning team.

 

You can aim for long-term stability (without ever winning a cup) and that probably best describes the Ranger's modus operandi.  We're afraid to fail and so we aim below what it takes to ultimately succeed.

 

Here's hoping McDavid goes on the open market in a few years.  That might give us a shot at a cup.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Br4d

[Long live the King]

The issue here is the thought the Rangers are doing something wrong.  They aren't.  It's heavily luck dependant. 

 

Theere are what 4 out of 30+ teams that have multiple cups in the last 20 years?  Chicago was lucky to have the 1oa when arguably the best American player of all time was on the board.  Pitt was lucky to draft high when Crosby and Malkin were there.  Tampa was lucky to get Stamkos and Hedman.  

 

The Oilers had like 5 1oa picks.  They haven't won shit.  Hall, Tavares, RNH, Yakupov, Ekblad these guys didn't help anyone build a dynasty.  Matthews has one playoff series win.

 

You can try to paint it as an organizational failure, but the truth of the matter is the Rangers simply got their high picks in the wrong years.  Bad luck. 

 

Plus winning the cup is hard.

 

As @Pete has mentioned, Hanks teams were some of the best in the league.  Most playoff wi s of any team that didn't win a cup.  To say the org sucks is wrong.  They built a good contender.  

Edited August 31, 2023 by Long live the King

[Br4d]

The Rangers are doing something wrong.

 

They are overly dependent on talent infusions from other teams and over time that just doesn't produce the best results because most other teams hold on to their real talent.

 

 

[Pete]

4 hours ago, Br4d said:

The Rangers are doing something wrong.

 

They are overly dependent on talent infusions from other teams and over time that just doesn't produce the best results because most other teams hold on to their real talent.

 

 

Didn't the Panthers just go to a final on a team built entirely through trades and free agency, outside of Barkov, Ekblad, and Lundell? 

Edited August 31, 2023 by Pete

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

10 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

It’s about establishing a team that is capable of winning multiple Cups. If they only win one amongst a long competitive window (Bruins?), it’s still great.

 

It’s not hard to find the commonality of the franchises that have won multiple Cups within a 5-10 year span or so. There’s nothing wrong with emulating that. If you keep shoving all in with vets, maybe you’ll hit a ‘94 season. It’s just so much less likely to hit on a flash in the pan season than the alternative of finding and developing legitimate young superstar talent to build around for repeated higher probability attempts at the Cup. Granted, it’s pretty damn hard to find that kind of talent or everyone would do it, but it’s worth committing to finding it.

 

Even that 93-94 team had alot of talented youth on it after trading Amonte(23) at the deadline:

 

Zubov(23)

Graves(25)

Kovalev(20)

Matteau(23)

Leetch(25)

Karpotsev(23)

Norstrom(21)

 

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by MuddyInTheMiddle

[Pete]

8 hours ago, Br4d said:

However they are indisputably a failure at putting together a cup winning team.

So are 30 teams, every year. It's like winning Cups is hard, right? 

[fletch]

In several posts I've seen the statement in some form 'winning a Stanley Cup is hard', which is obvious and self-defeating because it contains an implicit excuse.

 

Saying that the grass is green is obvious.

Saying that learning calculus is obvious and self-defeating when you ultimately don't learn calculus, because the concepts don't click, you don't get calculus taught in a way that you grasp, or for whatever reason the approach(s) you take doesn't work.  If you acknowledge the obvious, find an approach that works, and learn calculus, you have achieved something that is difficult.

 

Winning a Stanley Cup is hard is fine to recognize that 31 of 32 teams fail to win the Cup each year.  But all efforts and approaches aren't equal.  A couple of teams fall just short, and may have been a lucky bounce or two from winning a game that could have turned a series around.  A few teams are clear contenders, and have a window to win the Cup in the near future.  A few teams are at the bottom of the standings, and far from contending.  The vast majority of the teams are 'league average' - at various likelihoods of making the playoffs, but not one of the clear favorites to win the Cup.  These league average teams are missing something that the elite contenders have: either player talent, or cohesive forward lines, or defensive structure, or consistent goaltending, or coaching guidance, or organizational philosophy, or a united locker-room, or something.  It doesn't mean that a league average team can't make a deep playoff run in any given year - if you make the playoffs and get on a streak and favorable matchups, a league average team can make a deep run.  But that league average team should not be expected to make a deep playoff run regularly, while an elite team can win at least 2 playoff series in a given year at least 3 out of 4 years.  And that deep playoff run can delude the league average team that they are closer to being an elite contender than they are.

 

Rangers management has taken an approach that has kept them in the league average tier.  When acquiring aging veterans you incrementally improve your chance at making the playoffs and incrementally improve your chance at winning an early round series without becoming an elite team.  We've seen the best of the core of Kreider,  Zib, and the other players on the wrong side of 30.  It doesn't mean that their production is going to fall off a cliff.   But it does mean that if the Rangers are going to develop into an elite team, it's going to take development of Laf, Kakko, Chytil, Miller.  It's going to mean an infusion of young players that get better.  Kreider, Zib, Panarin can continue to produce and play important roles in NHL playoff runs.  Vezina Shesterkin is certainly capable of backstopping a deep playoff run. 

 

My deeper concern is the lack of: 1. organizational stability, 2. philosophy, and 3. accountability. 

1. Cycling through this many coaches in a limited time-frame shows lack of organizational stability, and inhibits development of a unifying organizational culture focused on common goals.

2. Under Torts, you knew the Rangers identity.  You knew what was needed from players to play in his system.   I don't know what Rangers hockey currently is, like I did under Torts.

3. The Devils series and organizational response was another reminder that players have largely not been held accountable for failing to play hard or to their potential.  The coach has been the fall guy, blamed 100 percent. The general manager shares responsibility for team construction, and ultimately the players are responsible for the on-ice results.

 

Until the Rangers do a better job addressing shortcomings, they will remain a league average team.

[Drew a Penalty]

6 hours ago, Br4d said:

The Rangers are doing something wrong.

 

They are overly dependent on talent infusions from other teams and over time that just doesn't produce the best results because most other teams hold on to their real talent.

 

 

 

What "real" talent have the Rangers not held onto? The entire reason they've had to go out and pursue talent is because of the failings described in the OP of this thread. Their strength for the last 20 years or so has been drafting grunts and complementary players. Too many years of middling teams and then no first-round picks obviously don't lead to the same results as bottoming out entirely and accruing capital.

 

There are role players the Rangers should've held onto over the years, but the McDonagh + Miller trade is the only one I can think of where it probably would've just been better to hold on. I'd still have traded Miller anyway.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Didn't the Panthers just go to a final on a team built entirely through trades and free agency, outside of Barkov, Ekblad, and Lundell? 

Barkov is a better forward than anything the Rangers have legitimately developed in decades. Vegas might actually suit the counter point more because they were built primarily from other teams’ players and had next to nobody they actually drafted in the lineup.

 

I’d clarify that my view doesn’t require the Rangers to have actually drafted a young 20s superstar to “do it right”. Trading is fine ala Tkachuk and Eichel, as long as the age is right. It’s infrequent for a player of that caliber to be available at that age, even witb both of those guys as recent examples.

 

The Rangers traded for one in Fox, but as special as he is, he’s a defenseman. It generally takes at least one star forward in the league today to establish that higher probability window for winning a single Cup, and creating something that might just win multiple. There’s exceptions to every rule, like the Blues a few years ago, but in general it‘s what the winning team has. It’s more often they have multiple star forwards than it is they have none.

 

Panarin was almost the guy for the Rangers, and I still believe it was a valid and worthwhile attempt as they got him with a few years of prime left, but alas it hasn’t worked out. He’s not that guy, and there’s a real risk to long lasting damage to the franchise by clutching on to the hope he represented 4 years ago. That hope is faded now and requires a pivot in strategy.

[RJWantsTheCup]

The Rangers are going to kick the can at least this season with this core and a new coach before they decide to try a different approach.   If they fail to make the playoffs (highly doubtful) or have zero playoff success then they will make changes to the core of Panarin, Zibanejad, Kreider, Fox, Shesterkin.

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

The Rangers are going to kick the can at least this season with this core and a new coach before they decide to try a different approach.   If they fail to make the playoffs (highly doubtful) or have zero playoff success then they will make changes to the core of Panarin, Zibanejad, Kreider, Fox, Shesterkin.

Even if this is true, and I’m not sure it is, any move made would probably be pretty heavily tainted with “win now” because of the coach they hired. It will be swapping out a 30 something y.o. for another 30 something y.o. It’d be different, but would it really be different?

[Br4d]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Didn't the Panthers just go to a final on a team built entirely through trades and free agency, outside of Barkov, Ekblad, and Lundell? 

 

Barkov was their best player going into the season.  They acquired one of those unicorns that can lead you to a cup in Tkachuk,

 

They lost in the finals.

 

They're kind of an example of why this doesn't work more than why it works.  However Tkachuk *is* one of those unicorns and they have a shot at a cup sometime in the next few years if they can play up to their talent level.  They didn't really do that this season.

[RangersIn7]

27 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Barkov was their best player going into the season.  They acquired one of those unicorns that can lead you to a cup in Tkachuk,

 

They lost in the finals.

 

They're kind of an example of why this doesn't work more than why it works.  However Tkachuk *is* one of those unicorns and they have a shot at a cup sometime in the next few years if they can play up to their talent level.  They didn't really do that this season.

With Barkov and Tkachuk, and a healthy Ekblad (if that’s even possible) they could very well get back there. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

 

Barkov was their best player going into the season.  They acquired one of those unicorns that can lead you to a cup in Tkachuk,

 

They lost in the finals.

 

They're kind of an example of why this doesn't work more than why it works.  However Tkachuk *is* one of those unicorns and they have a shot at a cup sometime in the next few years if they can play up to their talent level.  They didn't really do that this season.

I don't see how, but not worth the debate.

[Pete]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

Barkov is a better forward than anything the Rangers have legitimately developed in decades. Vegas might actually suit the counter point more because they were built primarily from other teams’ players and had next to nobody they actually drafted in the lineup.

 

I’d clarify that my view doesn’t require the Rangers to have actually drafted a young 20s superstar to “do it right”. Trading is fine ala Tkachuk and Eichel, as long as the age is right. It’s infrequent for a player of that caliber to be available at that age, even witb both of those guys as recent examples.

 

The Rangers traded for one in Fox, but as special as he is, he’s a defenseman. It generally takes at least one star forward in the league today to establish that higher probability window for winning a single Cup, and creating something that might just win multiple. There’s exceptions to every rule, like the Blues a few years ago, but in general it‘s what the winning team has. It’s more often they have multiple star forwards than it is they have none.

 

Panarin was almost the guy for the Rangers, and I still believe it was a valid and worthwhile attempt as they got him with a few years of prime left, but alas it hasn’t worked out. He’s not that guy, and there’s a real risk to long lasting damage to the franchise by clutching on to the hope he represented 4 years ago. That hope is faded now and requires a pivot in strategy.

The fact that we're now acknowledging that it doesn't strictly need to be done through the draft is enough for me. That was yesterday's flag that was planted, and it needed to be walked back.

[RangersIn7]

You need a 3-pronged approach to build a team.

Draft

Trade

Free Agents

 

But drafting is always 1st on the list. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

The fact that we're now acknowledging that it doesn't strictly need to be done through the draft is enough for me. That was yesterday's flag that was planted, and it needed to be walked back.

 

it’s more frequently draft and develop versus the sign or trade when it comes to that sort of thing

[RangersIn7]

3 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

The Rangers are going to kick the can at least this season with this core and a new coach before they decide to try a different approach.   If they fail to make the playoffs (highly doubtful) or have zero playoff success then they will make changes to the core of Panarin, Zibanejad, Kreider, Fox, Shesterkin.

Which is absolutely what they should be doing.

You basically set it up to have 4-5 shots at it, and they’re moving into year 3. 

 

They can, in the last year or so of that, make some bigger alterations, but the core is the core, for the most part. 
They have a good set of pieces to do it. 
And I think they hired the right coach and staff.

They deserve a couple of kicks at the can.