The Athletic Rangers Rank 25th in 2023 NHL Front Office Confidence Rankings

[Phil]

Quote

25. New York Rangers

Last Year: 13th

 

 

Quote

“This team went from a committed rebuild in 2017 to a “contender” with one of the oldest rosters in the league in less than five years. It’s rinse and repeat for the Rangers since the 90s, no patience to build a strong contender, but rather try to rush and buy their way in.”

 

“Would love to see some smarter draft decisions and better prospect development. Last few years have produced some duds and some middle-of-the-path guys, but no one game-changing has come up through our own system.”

 

Quote

Part of that comes from the team’s young players not progressing as expected. The Rangers unsurprisingly rank in the league’s bottom three for drafting and developing which feels high considering how their back-to-back top two picks have turned out so far. A jump from one or both of Alexis Lafrenière and Kaapo Kakko would be monumental for this franchise’s future — and their standing on this list.

 

Aside from that it does feel like the team’s fans are being a little harsh on the club. Winning isn’t easy and development isn’t linear. The Rangers are still in a solid position and had a quietly decent offseason. But whether it actually pans out all depends on whether their young players finally do.

 

https://theathletic.com/4799749/2023/08/30/nhl-front-office-confidence-rankings-2023/

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

25th?? And who are the "Fan base"? I can't understand how a Rangers fan could look at this front office and give them only C's and D's.

 

And the only argument is that they didn't use 5+ years on the rebuild?

[RangersIn7]

A lot of that is based on signing 2 players to play reasonably limited and specific roles. 
And they are admittedly conceding that the kids need to take a further step, which is a plainly seen and known fact.

 

 

[RichieNextel305]

No game changer has come up through our own system?

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but winning a Vezina Trophy signifies you being a game changer, does it not?

 

Listen, bumps in the road exist. We haven’t made every single right move known to man. Maybe we zigged when we should have zagged a time or 2. But this? This is just fucking asinine. 

Edited August 30, 2023 by RichieNextel305

[RangersIn7]

Just now, RichieNextel305 said:

No game changer has come up through our own system?

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but winning a Vezina Trophy signifies you being a game changer, does it not?

 

Listen, bumps in the road exist. We haven’t made every single right move known to man. Maybe we zigged when we should have zagged a time or 2. But this? This is just fucking asinine. 

Yeah

Its not a great piece.

 

 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

For me it's more like:

 

Roster Building - B-  - I think the roster is built fine. Great goalie, #1 D man, #1C and it's a fairly balanced team. A bit top heavy (mostly due to cap management), but overall I think it's balanced and good.

 

Cap management - C  - Got screwed with a lot of big contract right before/after Covid and the unexpected flat cap, but there's been a few questionable contracts. I think they did well in locking up Zib and Fox to good cap hits and the bridge contracts for the younger players have been good.

 

Draft and Develop - C  - It's a tough one. I honestly don't think the drafting has been that bad. The development is worse, but they've done well with defensemen.

 

Trading - A-  - I'm struggling to think of a bad trade the last two years.

 

Free agency - B+  - Done well with basically no available cap.

 

Vision - what the fuck does that even mean.

[RichieNextel305]

I get that our ending last year was abysmal. It was ugly. It’s been well talked about. It ruffled feathers of the organization, fan base and media, both local and national. They really fucked up. I get all of that. And I get that, though the record isn’t all bad, that there were some inconsistencies to the last season that weren’t there the season before. Cool. Understood. And noted.

 

But, the ending to last year is really blinding people to what this roster is capable of. And what the talent level of the people in the building actually is. Listen, I’ve said it a thousand times. I probably lost my shit more than most in the heat of the moment when we wiped out in Game 7. It was embarrassing. But when you’re able to distance yourself from it and come back down to Earth, you realize that bumps in the road happen, and that sometimes you need to learn how to walk before you can run.

 

The lack of respect that this team has gotten from the outside is something I hope can fuel them right out of the gate. Yeah, their ending was ugly; probably uglier than any other playoff team last year. But, now we get a chance to dust ourselves off and bounce back. And there is more than enough talent to make that happen.

[RichieNextel305]

I don’t get the knock on recent drafting and developing. There likely isn’t a front office in the league that isn’t taking Lafreniere or Kakko where the Rangers did. They did extremely well trading up to draft Miller. They drafted Shesterkin. Ohtmann and Perrault look to be good selections. Chytil, where we grabbed him, looks to be a good one. We drafted Shesterkin, which speaks for itself. The only really super dud I can think of recently is Kravtsov. Fox wasn’t a draft pick, but we did acquire him and develop him here and he’s become a star. Same goes for Lindgren (not a star but a very solid piece). Schneider has been a solid young piece on the blueline and is still super young and now loaded with experience.

 

I feel like people who don’t follow as closely as we do are quick to fire off the false narratives that it’s back to the Rangers being the Rangers, when in reality it isn’t. Even when it comes to bad contracts. Is Troubas deal a bit over market value? Probably. But he contributes. Same goes for Goodrow. But these aren’t stiffs. We once watched a team with Wade Redden AND Michal Rozsival on it, combining for close to $60 Million dollars, and they contributed absolutely nothing. That, my friends, is poor cap management. I’m not saying that we don’t have players who may be slightly overpaid, but can’t we say that about just about every single team in the league during a flat cap era?

 

I’m not sitting here trying to make it seem like all is rosy and peachy in Rangerstown. There for sure are question marks. But to paint a picture like this? I mean, I’m sorry. It’s just not accurate.

[RangersIn7]

8 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

For me it's more like:

 

Roster Building - B-  - I think the roster is built fine. Great goalie, #1 D man, #1C and it's a fairly balanced team. A bit top heavy (mostly due to cap management), but overall I think it's balanced and good.

 

Cap management - C  - Got screwed with a lot of big contract right before/after Covid and the unexpected flat cap, but there's been a few questionable contracts. I think they did well in locking up Zib and Fox to good cap hits and the bridge contracts for the younger players have been good.

 

Draft and Develop - C  - It's a tough one. I honestly don't think the drafting has been that bad. The development is worse, but they've done well with defensemen.

 

Trading - A-  - I'm struggling to think of a bad trade the last two years.

 

Free agency - B+  - Done well with basically no available cap.

 

Vision - what the fuck does that even mean.

Yes.

Those assessments are by in large fair and accurate.

There may be some room for disagreement and debate, but either way, your are not too far off, IMO.

 

They’ve done well. Are there some issues with contracts, namely guys like Trouba in money and Trochek in term, and arguably Goodrow. Yes.

 

What gets overlooked is that they don’t matter while they’re legitimately contenders. They matter afterwards when you’re team takes a step down.

But by then you’re looking at a rebuild anyway, so you’re keeping some key younger guys and moving on from the rest.

You can move Trochek or Goodrow later on. Eat some money and send a sweetener and it not only gets done but it improves your return.

 

They’ve done very well.

Still very much a contender and will likely be so for another 2-3 seasons.

100 wins and a deep playoff run in last 2 years.

[RangersIn7]

10 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I don’t get the knock on recent drafting and developing. There likely isn’t a front office in the league that isn’t taking Lafreniere or Kakko where the Rangers did. They did extremely well trading up to draft Miller. They drafted Shesterkin. Ohtmann and Perrault look to be good selections. Chytil, where we grabbed him, looks to be a good one. We drafted Shesterkin, which speaks for itself. The only really super dud I can think of recently is Kravtsov. Fox wasn’t a draft pick, but we did acquire him and develop him here and he’s become a star. Same goes for Lindgren (not a star but a very solid piece). Schneider has been a solid young piece on the blueline and is still super young and now loaded with experience.

 

I feel like people who don’t follow as closely as we do are quick to fire off the false narratives that it’s back to the Rangers being the Rangers, when in reality it isn’t. Even when it comes to bad contracts. Is Troubas deal a bit over market value? Probably. But he contributes. Same goes for Goodrow. But these aren’t stiffs. We once watched a team with Wade Redden AND Michal Rozsival on it, combining for close to $60 Million dollars, and they contributed absolutely nothing. That, my friends, is poor cap management. I’m not saying that we don’t have players who may be slightly overpaid, but can’t we say that about just about every single team in the league during a flat cap era?

 

I’m not sitting here trying to make it seem like all is rosy and peachy in Rangerstown. There for sure are question marks. But to paint a picture like this? I mean, I’m sorry. It’s just not accurate.

I would agree their drafting has been better than it has been historically. But it has been typically no better than below average.

They’ve typically had above average to good success with D.

Excellent success with goalies.

Sub-par to bad success with forwards.

 

Drafting has been an issue. I don’t feel it that now.

Are the Rangers known for their great ability to develop young players organizationally?

No.

Has it improved?

Somewhat. And I think it’s trending in a better direction.

 

They have always spent too much money and done so poorly. They’ve always put too much emphasis on free agency. They’ve historically skewed towards mistakes in the way of vets they have acquired/signed that are older, in decline, or outright passed their respective prime. 
 

And they’ve oftentimes not placed enough emphasis upon organizational player development and how to do that consistently well. 

 

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

2 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

For me it's more like:

 

Roster Building - B-  - I think the roster is built fine. Great goalie, #1 D man, #1C and it's a fairly balanced team. A bit top heavy (mostly due to cap management), but overall I think it's balanced and good.

 

Cap management - C  - Got screwed with a lot of big contract right before/after Covid and the unexpected flat cap, but there's been a few questionable contracts. I think they did well in locking up Zib and Fox to good cap hits and the bridge contracts for the younger players have been good.

 

Draft and Develop - C  - It's a tough one. I honestly don't think the drafting has been that bad. The development is worse, but they've done well with defensemen.

 

Trading - A-  - I'm struggling to think of a bad trade the last two years.

 

Free agency - B+  - Done well with basically no available cap.

 

Vision - what the fuck does that even mean.

 

I looked at Cap Friendly to make sure that I wasn't missing anything, but I think probably the cap hit that you could be most critical of would be Trouba. It should probably be 6.75-7 million if you consider the season that he was coming off in Winnipeg, and what top 4 defenseman who are on the verge of free agency go for.

 

Goodrow's is probably also about 1 million too high.  

 

If you look at a single contract or two that is off by ~1 million when you compare the value they are getting in the Kreider, Chytil, Vesey, Wheeler, Lingdren, and Shesterkin contracts; the article is asinine to be critical of that.  

[Phil]

Goodrow is paid commiserate with what he produces + the intangibles he brings. I'd argue the only guy on the roster who is objectively overpaid is Trouba. He should probably be a $5–6 million player.

 

The Rangers don't have an overpaying problem, really, they just have a few too many of these guys who are paid properly, but who are unnecessary luxuries on the roster at the same time. Trocheck (when you have Chytil coming up), Goodrow (when he's kinda buried in your lineup and expensive for a fourth-liner), etc.

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

25th?? And who are the "Fan base"? I can't understand how a Rangers fan could look at this front office and give them only C's and D's.

 

And the only argument is that they didn't use 5+ years on the rebuild?

3-4 guys from here probably spamming the survey.

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

Goodrow is paid commiserate with what he produces + the intangibles he brings. I'd argue the only guy on the roster who is objectively overpaid is Trouba. He should probably be a $5–6 million player.

 

The Rangers don't have an overpaying problem, really, they just have a few too many of these guys who are paid properly, but who are unnecessary luxuries on the roster at the same time. Trocheck (when you have Chytil coming up), Goodrow (when he's kinda buried in your lineup and expensive for a fourth-liner), etc.

 

Didn't look at it that way, but you are correct. I was looking at it through the lends of if they were overpaid when they signed the deal, of which Trouba's absolutely was.

 

That cuts both ways too; if the Rangers had any idea they were getting three 30+ extrapolated goal seasons out of Krieder with one of them being a 52 goal campaign, they would have done cartwheels.

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

3-4 guys from here probably spamming the survey.

 

I think it was an Athletic survey they sent out on Twitter, so yeah, same shit.

[Ozzy]

I heard the same shit in '93 after we missed the playoffs...over rated, overpaid, roster holes...Blah blah blah...

 

Remind me again what happened in '94???  ahh yeah, that's right!  I forgot.

 

New season, new leader...NEW ATTITUDE.  ...and when we win the Cup this season, the Athletic can kiss my ass!

[The Dude]

Right off the bat with saying they have one of the oldest rosters in the league . They were pretty much in the middle of the pack age wise at the end of last season. And looking at the rest of the league you have Colorado and Tampa as well as a plethora of the better teams who are higher in age average. 

 

This team has done just fine with balancing out the age on the roster. 

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Right off the bat with saying they have one of the oldest rosters in the league . They were pretty much in the middle of the pack age wise at the end of last season. And looking at the rest of the league you have Colorado and Tampa as well as a plethora of the better teams who are higher in age average. 

 

This team has done just fine with balancing out the age on the roster. 

 

I mean, they do have one of the oldest rosters in the league now. They were pretty much dead on the mark last season. The NHL average was 27.65 and their average roster age was 27.6.

 

Since then, they've subtracted Hajek (25), Kane (34), Tarasenko (31), Motte (28), Mikkola (27), Halak (38), and added Quick (37), Wheeler (36), Bonino (35), Pitlick (31), Belzile (31), Gustafsson (31) and Riley Nash (34). That's a whole lotta thirty-somethings depending on who exactly you think makes the final cut or not.

 

Everyone else on the roster is a year older, as well. My guess is their average roster age is gonna be among the oldest in the league by the start of the year. The only teams I think will definitely be older are the Caps and Pens, off the top of my head.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, they do have one of the oldest rosters in the league now. They were pretty much dead on the mark last season. The NHL average was 27.65 and their average roster age was 27.6.

 

Since then, they've subtracted Hajek (25), Kane (34), Tarasenko (31), Motte (28), Mikkola (27), Halak (38), and added Quick (37), Wheeler (36), Bonino (35), Pitlick (31), Belzile (31), Gustafsson (31) and Riley Nash (34). That's a whole lotta thirty-somethings depending on who exactly you think makes the final cut or not.

 

Everyone else on the roster is a year older, as well. My guess is their average roster age is gonna be among the oldest in the league by the start of the year. The only teams I think will definitely be older are the Caps and Pens, off the top of my head.

The guys they added this year are all one year deals. That doesn't make them an aging team, they're going for it and had no cap room.

 

Team won't look like this next year. 

[Phil]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

The guys they added this year are all one year deals. That doesn't make them an aging team, they're going for it and had no cap room.

 

Team won't look like this next year. 

 

I know that, but that's beside the point. I know why they did it. I actually think they did a really good job given their constraints, but the point The Dude was making was that they aren't actually an older roster. They absolutely are. They were middle of the pack last year. They'll be among the oldest this season, no doubt.

[Pete]

7 hours ago, Phil said:

 

I know that, but that's beside the point. I know why they did it. I actually think they did a really good job given their constraints, but the point The Dude was making was that they aren't actually an older roster. They absolutely are. They were middle of the pack last year. They'll be among the oldest this season, no doubt.

But it doesn't matter, is the point. That criticism matters when you're going to continue to be old, in the context of this article. 

 

 

[Sharpshooter]

They are a bit older this year, but yeah, these guys are just on one year deals and most are basically just stopgaps and filler type players anyway. That's really all there is to it. We really need hockey to start. I feel like we're starting to eat each other alive in some of these discussions. lol

[4EverRangerFrank]

Athletic? Athletic supporter! That was a ball-sniffers article if ever there was one. Haters gonna' hate. The stench of last year's embarrassing elimination has been smelled in all corners of the media and someone decided to amplify it for 'likes.' F-him.

[LindG1000]

Yeah...I dunno. This feels really harsh. 

 

I don't think Drury is a poor trader. Quite the opposite actually.

I don't think he's bad at free agency, but I can get him taking a few dings over Trocheck and Goodrow.

I'm not really sure how much you can really assess draft and develop in two years. Drury's first draft pick was Brennan Othmann - I'm not really sure how to grade this fairly. It's been a sore spot for a while, though.

 

Feels like an angry over-reaction from the fanbase to me. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, LindG1000 said:

Yeah...I dunno. This feels really harsh. 

 

I don't think Drury is a poor trader. Quite the opposite actually.

I don't think he's bad at free agency, but I can get him taking a few dings over Trocheck and Goodrow.

I'm not really sure how much you can really assess draft and develop in two years. Drury's first draft pick was Brennan Othmann - I'm not really sure how to grade this fairly. It's been a sore spot for a while, though.

 

Feels like an angry over-reaction from the fanbase to me. 

I think Drury has been solid at in-season rental trades in terms of value. I’d argue only that the conditional on the Copp trade was too loose. We could debate until we are blue in the face if he should have traded for Kane, but the value itself was a steal. Solid marks on handling rental trade value IMO.

 

On the other hand, I think he’s been piss poor in offseason moves. Nemeth/Buch disaster. I don’t really give credit for Wheeler or Gustafsson this summer. They took major pay cuts for whatever reason to come here and there’s next to zero chance it had anything to do with Drury doing some ultra-GMing to make it happen.
 

I agree about trying to grade drafting/developing. You probably need a GM to have close to 5 years on the job to start getting into that.