2023-24 Reports From the Rink

[LindG1000]

Debates around Lafreniere versus Kreider may not be the issue here. Looking around the league, you can see that the 2020 draft class got railroaded by COVID game loss, and they're just figuring it out now. Stutzle and Lundell were the exceptions - and the reason is clear - they played overseas during the pandemic and didn't "lose the season" the way others did.

 

The 2020 class went off this year. Lafreniere, obviously, but Byfield, Raymond, Jarvis, Peterka, and maybe one or two others really made big impact steps forward. Then there are guys like Schneider, Guhle, Sanderson on D, and a few goalies to come, but it feels like this class was a year behind the curve.

 

 

[RangersIn7]

6 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

Debates around Lafreniere versus Kreider may not be the issue here. Looking around the league, you can see that the 2020 draft class got railroaded by COVID game loss, and they're just figuring it out now. Stutzle and Lundell were the exceptions - and the reason is clear - they played overseas during the pandemic and didn't "lose the season" the way others did.

 

The 2020 class went off this year. Lafreniere, obviously, but Byfield, Raymond, Jarvis, Peterka, and maybe one or two others really made big impact steps forward. Then there are guys like Schneider, Guhle, Sanderson on D, and a few goalies to come, but it feels like this class was a year behind the curve.

 

 

That was definitely a big factor for all of those guys you mentioned.

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

I'm "coming at you" because the Kreider hate is starting to get ridiculous. 3-4 years ago it was warranted when you complained about his lack of consistency, but now it makes no sense. He's been great for 3 years, yet you take every chance you get to put him down or say some shit about him.

 

What was even the point about that comment you made? I would think a Laf and Kreider stan actually loves it right now. They're both playing amazing and helps the team every night. I don't see why, especially as a Rangers fan as well, it would be tough to support those two players. What must be tough is being Kreider's biggest hater over the last 3 years. That must've sucked.

You have a wild fixation with me. You act like I'm the only one who complains about Kreider. Go take your arguments up with everybody else who feels the same as I do, cuz there are quite a few. 

 

It hasn't sucked hating Kreider at all. It's actually been really easy, because no matter what stats you want to throw up, the fact is if he wasn't half-assed all the time his stats would be even better. 

 

The funny thing is when he was a close to a 30 goal scorer and I said he was capable of more, people like you bitched and moaned about it. Then he scored 50, 40, and you're all on that dick... But I was right all along about him having the ability to put up more goals than he was. 

 

So yeah, I'm still right. 

Edited April 30 by Pete

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Well you’re just wrong on both accounts here.
 

There are plenty of examples, but the premise you started with that Kreider’s position on the PP has anything to do with Lafreniere is honestly just nuts. I don’t know of any teams who put their first overall picks in front of the net on the PP, in a position where the puck isn’t on their stick to create chances and take shots.

Netfront is probably relegated to second overall picks I guess?

 

Because here's Byfield playing net front for the LA Kings. 

 

 

 

 

 Draft position has nothing to do with where you are positioned on the power play. 

 

Look who's wrong now! 

 

Edited April 30 by Pete

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

The funny thing is when he was a close to a 30 goal scorer and I said he was capable of more, people like you bitched and moaned about it. Then he scored 50, 40, and you're all on that dick... But I was right all along about him having the ability to put up more goals than he was

And now that he does that consistently you’re still expecting even more.

 

If Kreider was what you believe he should be he would be the best player in the league and making twice what he does.

[Duguay10]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

Could have scored 200 if he skated harder and shot more pucks.

Why stop at 200...could have scored 400. He is arguably a top 5 Rangers player of all time......yet people are upset he didn't have Gretzky's career.

[Pete]

16 minutes ago, Duguay10 said:

Why stop at 200...could have scored 400. He is arguably a top 5 Rangers player of all time......yet people are upset he didn't have Gretzky's career.

I'm not upset he didn't have Gretzky's career, I'm upset he didn't have the career he could have had. 

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

And now that he does that consistently you’re still expecting even more.

 

If Kreider was what you believe he should be he would be the best player in the league and making twice what he does.

The problem is you selectively remember things that I say and then try to throw certain other things back in my face out of context in some childish game. Weird obsession. Find another hobby. 

 

I never complained about his goal scoring prowess. Not once. What I've said is that it's incredible he scores the amount of goals he does while shooting the puck so little. 

 

It's other areas of his game that are lacking, mainly physicality and the forecheck, and his contribution on the cycle is non-existent, which means his line mates need to work harder.

 

There's more to hockey than goal scoring. He's a player with many tools at his disposal, yet he only uses one of them. 

Edited April 30 by Pete

[Albatrosss]

i dont like Kreider cause he's an asshole.  

Kreider came into the league a scoring hitting power forward, working the boards and going thru players.  Somewhere along the way he lost his ballsack and got a manicure.  

[Duguay10]

5 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

i dont like Kreider cause he's an asshole.  

Kreider came into the league a scoring hitting power forward, working the boards and going thru players.  Somewhere along the way he lost his ballsack and got a manicure.  

Is it going to kill you to see his number hanging from the rafters as long as the Garden stands? Top 5 NY Ranger all time.

[Albatrosss]

5 minutes ago, Duguay10 said:

Is it going to kill you to see his number hanging from the rafters as long as the Garden stands? Top 5 NY Ranger all time.

were the rangers really that bad in their 100 year history that fucking Kreider is our top 5 player of all time?   and yes, it would suck to see his number retired cause IMO he does not deserve such honor.  He's been an average NHLer who got lucky that players like Panarin and Fox ended up on his PP.   My view would of course change if he won the cup with the rangers. 

[Long live the King]

21 minutes ago, Pete said:

The problem is you selectively remember things that I say and then try to throw certain other things back in my face out of context in some childish game. Weird obsession. Find another hobby. 

 

I never complained about his goal scoring prowess. Not once. What I've said is that it's incredible he scores the amount of goals he does while shooting the puck so little. 

 

It's other areas of his game that are lacking, mainly physicality and the forecheck, and his contribution on the cycle is non-existent, which means his line mates need to work harder.

 

There's more to hockey than goal scoring. He's a player with many tools at his disposal, yet he only uses one of them. 

 

Think of how much better the PP would be if he didn't kill the break-in every time the player carrying the puck with speed dished it to him on the blueline.

[LindG1000]

On 4/30/2024 at 2:27 PM, Albatrosss said:

were the rangers really that bad in their 100 year history that fucking Kreider is our top 5 player of all time?   and yes, it would suck to see his number retired cause IMO he does not deserve such honor.  He's been an average NHLer who got lucky that players like Panarin and Fox ended up on his PP.   My view would of course change if he won the cup with the rangers. 

 

If we win the Cup, Kreider is my pick for "will damage the Cup"

[LindG1000]

On 4/30/2024 at 2:27 PM, Albatrosss said:

were the rangers really that bad in their 100 year history that fucking Kreider is our top 5 player of all time?   and yes, it would suck to see his number retired cause IMO he does not deserve such honor.  He's been an average NHLer who got lucky that players like Panarin and Fox ended up on his PP.   My view would of course change if he won the cup with the rangers. 

 

I think context matters so much with this, though. The Rangers will celebrate the 100th anniversary in 2026-2027 and had a stellar team to begin with, but with the rights and sponsorship situation carving up territory, the Rangers had no access to youth. Montreal and Toronto (and Detroit) had a decent monopoly on Junior team sponsorship, and would repeatedly sign players to so-called "A" forms (an annual "tryout rights renewal") - so a player brought up through a Montreal-sponsored team would sign this form every year as a rights retention mechanism for the Canadiens - or "C" forms (professional rights forms). It froze out Chicago, New York, and Boston for a while as they'd only really get the late bloomers, so from 1940 to the 1967 expansion, the Rangers, Bruins, and Blackhawks made a combined 12 finals APPEARANCES - and that gets worse when you balance out that 4 of those appearances were in the WW2 years, where Canada was involved in the war earlier (as it was British Canada at the time). A lot of the "breakthroughs" were dumb luck - Stan Mikita fleeing Slovakia with his family and just luckily landing in territory in Ontario that had a Blackhawks sponsorship team, or the Wings giving up too early on Bucyk and dealing him (though to be fair, they got Sawchuk in that trade).

 

The Rangers weren't on "even footing" until the late 1960s, when the modern draft was conceptualized. Then, these endless rights renewals and sponsorship deals started falling under intense legal scrutiny, and the monopoly broke. And pretty quickly, they competed.

 

So...yeah, I mean...Kreider's probably not yet a top 5 Ranger; for many, he may never be. But he's a few seasons away from being one of the most prevalent names in the franchise record books if he isn't already, and it's at least somewhat understandable why that is.

[Valriera]

On 4/30/2024 at 12:01 PM, LindG1000 said:

Debates around Lafreniere versus Kreider may not be the issue here. Looking around the league, you can see that the 2020 draft class got railroaded by COVID game loss, and they're just figuring it out now. Stutzle and Lundell were the exceptions - and the reason is clear - they played overseas during the pandemic and didn't "lose the season" the way others did.

 

The 2020 class went off this year. Lafreniere, obviously, but Byfield, Raymond, Jarvis, Peterka, and maybe one or two others really made big impact steps forward. Then there are guys like Schneider, Guhle, Sanderson on D, and a few goalies to come, but it feels like this class was a year behind the curve.

 

 

You see the same in schools too 

[Br4d]

2 hours ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I think context matters so much with this, though. The Rangers will celebrate the 100th anniversary in 2026-2027 and had a stellar team to begin with, but with the rights and sponsorship situation carving up territory, the Rangers had no access to youth. Montreal and Toronto (and Detroit) had a decent monopoly on Junior team sponsorship, and would repeatedly sign players to so-called "A" forms (an annual "tryout rights renewal") - so a player brought up through a Montreal-sponsored team would sign this form every year as a rights retention mechanism for the Canadiens - or "C" forms (professional rights forms). It froze out Chicago, New York, and Boston for a while as they'd only really get the late bloomers, so from 1940 to the 1967 expansion, the Rangers, Bruins, and Blackhawks made a combined 12 finals APPEARANCES - and that gets worse when you balance out that 4 of those appearances were in the WW2 years, where Canada was involved in the war earlier (as it was British Canada at the time). A lot of the "breakthroughs" were dumb luck - Stan Mikita fleeing Slovakia with his family and just luckily landing in territory in Ontario that had a Blackhawks sponsorship team, or the Wings giving up too early on Bucyk and dealing him (though to be fair, they got Sawchuk in that trade).

 

The Rangers weren't on "even footing" until the late 1960s, when the modern draft was conceptualized. Then, these endless rights renewals and sponsorship deals started falling under intense legal scrutiny, and the monopoly broke. And pretty quickly, they competed.

 

So...yeah, I mean...Kreider's probably not yet a top 5 Ranger; for many, he may never be. But he's a few seasons away from being one of the most prevalent names in the franchise record books if he isn't already, and it's at least somewhat understandable why that is.

 

3 of the 6 original teams were on a different plane than the other 3.  This is because the owners of those groups were in cahoots to keep the other 3 down.

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

 

3 of the 6 original teams were on a different plane than the other 3.  This is because the owners of those groups were in cahoots to keep the other 3 down.

It was all regional scouting rights.

And all the players in those days came mostly from Ontario and Quebec provinces and they inherently belonged to Toronto and Montreal.

 

And also… no players from Europe. No Russians. And very few American players.

 
The U.S. teams got screwed in a rigged system in a 6 team league. 
 

It just wasn’t fair.

 

 

Rangers, Red Wings, Bruins, and Blackhawks had to settle for other parts of Canada to find players and hopefully get some luck. 
 

It all started to change in the late-60’s and early-70’s with expansion, the advent of the NHL Draft, and the end of regional rights scouting. 
 

I don’t want to devalue the accomplishments of what those teams in Montreal or Toronto did in those days….

 

But they had maybe the most grossly favorable circumstances in which to build teams and the league did nothing about it for 40 years. So those teams built dynasties with absolutely nothing to stop them and no obstacles in their path. 
 

 

[Scott]

All these things were true. But they also had a benefit from that point forward until the cap was introduced.  They had the resources to outspend many. 

 

This article only mentions a db established in 2000. Cap went in 05-06.  It's also mentions:

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/401569-new-york-rangers-led-nhl-in-total-payroll-once-again-in-200910

 

Quote

For years before the lockout it was always the talk of the hockey world that the Rangers led the league in total payroll and accomplished nothing. People have seemed to forget about that factor once the league switched over to a salary cap.

 

Quote

As you can see, the Rangers have been forever throwing money around. Funny how the smaller the payroll, the larger the playoff success. For such a powerful franchise, you would think ownership would have degrees in economics.

 

There's a bunch of numbers, highest salaries on the team in between these quotes by the year. I didn't want to cut and paste the whole article, but there's some depressing reminders in there.

[Sod16]

4 hours ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I think context matters so much with this, though. The Rangers will celebrate the 100th anniversary in 2026-2027 and had a stellar team to begin with, but with the rights and sponsorship situation carving up territory, the Rangers had no access to youth. Montreal and Toronto (and Detroit) had a decent monopoly on Junior team sponsorship, and would repeatedly sign players to so-called "A" forms (an annual "tryout rights renewal") - so a player brought up through a Montreal-sponsored team would sign this form every year as a rights retention mechanism for the Canadiens - or "C" forms (professional rights forms). It froze out Chicago, New York, and Boston for a while as they'd only really get the late bloomers, so from 1940 to the 1967 expansion, the Rangers, Bruins, and Blackhawks made a combined 12 finals APPEARANCES - and that gets worse when you balance out that 4 of those appearances were in the WW2 years, where Canada was involved in the war earlier (as it was British Canada at the time). A lot of the "breakthroughs" were dumb luck - Stan Mikita fleeing Slovakia with his family and just luckily landing in territory in Ontario that had a Blackhawks sponsorship team, or the Wings giving up too early on Bucyk and dealing him (though to be fair, they got Sawchuk in that trade).

 

The Rangers weren't on "even footing" until the late 1960s, when the modern draft was conceptualized. Then, these endless rights renewals and sponsorship deals started falling under intense legal scrutiny, and the monopoly broke. And pretty quickly, they competed.

 

So...yeah, I mean...Kreider's probably not yet a top 5 Ranger; for many, he may never be. But he's a few seasons away from being one of the most prevalent names in the franchise record books if he isn't already, and it's at least somewhat understandable why that is.

For the reasons stated, the league was rigged in favor of Montreal, Toronto and Detroit, which finished first every year between 1943 and 1966 and won all but one cup in that period.  Before the War, the Canadian junior system was not as well developed and was not the exclusive feeder, so the Rangers, Boston and Hawks were competitive.  As far as Kreider being in the top 5, remember that the schedule was 48, 60 and then 70 for a good chunk of the 100 years.  The game was also more low scoring during large swaths of that time.  And hey, how many of the Rangers from the 1950s could jump out of filled swimming pool?

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

All these things were true. But they also had a benefit from that point forward until the cap was introduced.  They had the resources to outspend many. 

 

This article only mentions a db established in 2000. Cap went in 05-06.  It's also mentions:

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/401569-new-york-rangers-led-nhl-in-total-payroll-once-again-in-200910

 

 

 

There's a bunch of numbers, highest salaries on the team in between these quotes by the year. I didn't want to cut and paste the whole article, but there's some depressing reminders in there.

They missed their window to exploit the payroll advantage they could’ve had in 10 years from the mid-90’s till the 2004 lockout.

 

The Zubov trade and the miss on Sakic is what killed them. 
They’re competitive for the next 5 years if not for those things.

36 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

For the reasons stated, the league was rigged in favor of Montreal, Toronto and Detroit, which finished first every year between 1943 and 1966 and won all but one cup in that period.  Before the War, the Canadian junior system was not as well developed and was not the exclusive feeder, so the Rangers, Boston and Hawks were competitive.  As far as Kreider being in the top 5, remember that the schedule was 48, 60 and then 70 for a good chunk of the 100 years.  The game was also more low scoring during large swaths of that time.  And hey, how many of the Rangers from the 1950s could jump out of filled swimming pool?

Also very good historical points about the game to remember.

 

I view sports through eras.

And I’m getting older now so I’ve seen several in all sports.

 
In hockey, there’s several distinct eras.

1) Pre-NHL Era 1890’s-1920’s 

2) Original 6 Era of 1920’s to 1967.

3) Expansion/Merger Era 1967-1980

4) Modern Era 1980-2004

5) Salary Cap Era 2005-Present

 

 

[Sharpshooter]

17 hours ago, Sod16 said:

For the reasons stated, the league was rigged in favor of Montreal, Toronto and Detroit, which finished first every year between 1943 and 1966 and won all but one cup in that period.  Before the War, the Canadian junior system was not as well developed and was not the exclusive feeder, so the Rangers, Boston and Hawks were competitive.  As far as Kreider being in the top 5, remember that the schedule was 48, 60 and then 70 for a good chunk of the 100 years.  The game was also more low scoring during large swaths of that time.  And hey, how many of the Rangers from the 1950s could jump out of filled swimming pool?

This is bang on. In those days Toronto and especially Montreal had rights to all of the best players, especially the Canadiens. A lot of the best players were French Canadian, so of course, they had dibs. The 'Original Six' era wasn't too kind to the Rangers for reasons. Also, they lost a lot of talent who had to serve in the World War II.

[Br4d]

3 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

This is bang on. In those days Toronto and especially Montreal had rights to all of the best players, especially the Canadiens. A lot of the best players were French Canadian, so of course, they had dibs. The 'Original Six' era wasn't too kind to the Rangers for reasons. Also, they lost a lot of talent who had to serve in the World War II.

 

Detroit had access to a lot of good Canadian players also via proximity to Ontario.

[Sod16]

20 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Detroit had access to a lot of good Canadian players also via proximity to Ontario.

It was really all a matter of sponsoring junior teams, and MSG ownership was too cheap to do that.  One problem was that during the 40s and 50s, the Norris family owned both the Red Wings and a major stake in MSG Corp., and they put all of their junior team apples in one basket (the Red Wings).  The Rangers were viewed as a filler of dates in an arena that was focused on boxing and the circus.  The Rangers did sponsor one great junior team in the 50s, the Guelph Biltmores, who produced Gilbert, Ratelle, Howell, Prentice and others.

 

The league as still skewed that even when the universal draft was begun in 1969, they let gave the CANADIENS the first pick so that they could take the top French Canadien player.  Give me a break!

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, Sod16 said:

It was really all a matter of sponsoring junior teams, and MSG ownership was too cheap to do that.  One problem was that during the 40s and 50s, the Norris family owned both the Red Wings and a major stake in MSG Corp., and they put all of their junior team apples in one basket (the Red Wings).  The Rangers were viewed as a filler of dates in an arena that was focused on boxing and the circus.  The Rangers did sponsor one great junior team in the 50s, the Guelph Biltmores, who produced Gilbert, Ratelle, Howell, Prentice and others.

 

The league as still skewed that even when the universal draft was begun in 1969, they let gave the CANADIENS the first pick so that they could take the top French Canadien player.  Give me a break!

 

The cross-ownership problems were symptomatic of what was in effect a racket.  That's why I said the 3 teams were in cahoots. 

[RodrigueGabriel]

On 5/2/2024 at 2:23 PM, Scott said:

All these things were true. But they also had a benefit from that point forward until the cap was introduced.  They had the resources to outspend many. 

 

This article only mentions a db established in 2000. Cap went in 05-06.  It's also mentions:

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/401569-new-york-rangers-led-nhl-in-total-payroll-once-again-in-200910

 

 

 

There's a bunch of numbers, highest salaries on the team in between these quotes by the year. I didn't want to cut and paste the whole article, but there's some depressing reminders in there.

Oh yeah, there was that guy who said, "If I had the Rangers payroll, I'd win the Stanley Cup every year." Thanks for the memories, Slats.