Brooks Let Kakko Be Kakko

[Phil]

Quote

Into the Finn’s fifth season, the comparisons with Jack Hughes have stopped. If you feel the need to still measure Kakko against one of the league’s most dynamic and skilled players — who was never, by the way, available to the Rangers — there must be something missing in your life.

 

Kakko has been knocked down again and again and again, and each time he gets up. He is as earnest as they come and as true a Blue blood as there is in the room.

 

Tell me how many players would have handled an unexpected Game 6 healthy scratch in the conference final with the maturity and equanimity the then 21-year-old did after being told by head coach Gerard Gallant to watch from the press box while his team was sent home by Tampa Bay in 2022?

 

Quote

The 2023-24 Blueshirts do not need Kakko to justify his draft position. They need him to be the best version of himself. If he can turn his assignment at right wing on the Mika Zibanejad-Chris Kreider connection into a full-time gig, the team will become immeasurably better off for it.

 

Not only will it strengthen and deepen the rotation, it would eliminate the need for GM Chris Drury to sacrifice assets ahead of the March 8 trade deadline to fill that spot when there are other holes to patch.

 

Quote

In the great old TV series, “The West Wing,” the campaign strategy for New Hampshire Gov. Jed Bartlet as he ran for the presidency was distilled to four words that became a touchstone for his two terms in the White House.

 

It was, “Let Bartlet be Bartlet.”

 

For the Rangers, and more so the universe that revolves around them, the message is just as simple.

 

Let Kakko be Kakko.

 

https://nypost.com/2024/01/17/sports/rangers-should-have-one-simple-kaapo-kakko-message/

 

--

 

Can't disagree with any of this. Stoic but steady.

[BrooksBurner]

Totally on board with "let Kakko be Kakko".

 

I'm also on board with letting Kakko be Kakko somewhere else if it improves the team's outlook now and in future.

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Totally on board with "let Kakko be Kakko".

 

I'm also on board with letting Kakko be Kakko somewhere else if it improves the team's outlook now and in future.

 

Yes and yes, but the latter won't be much of an issue until TDL of next season, if not the off season.

[BrooksBurner]

13 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yes and yes, but the latter won't be much of an issue until TDL of next season, if not the off season.

 

Why? Who's to say he won't be ditched if he's sitting on 7 or 8 points by the deadline?

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Why? Who's to say he won't be ditched if he's sitting on 7 or 8 points by the deadline?

 

This year? He has no value in that scenario, and the issue is completely compounded by Chytil's status. The Team has very little wiggle room via cap room so they're going to need to be really, really strategic about who they add. If they deal Kakko, odds are they're not getting back a "better" player who isn't more expensive.

[BrooksBurner]

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

This year? He has no value in that scenario, and the issue is completely compounded by Chytil's status. The Team has very little wiggle room via cap room so they're going to need to be really, really strategic about who they add. If they deal Kakko, odds are they're not getting back a "better" player who isn't more expensive.

 

If he has no value in that scenario, then why keep him in a lineup that has Cup aspirations?

 

I think he would still have some value to a non-playoff team that thinks they might be able to extract offense out of him in a different setting and role. Examples: Kakko to San Jose for Duclair or Kakko to Anaheim for Vatrano. Maybe even get a mid round pick added in the return. If I'm either of those teams, I'd roll the dice on Kakko instead of getting a 3rd round pick that those guys would get otherwise.

[Phil]

17 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

If he has no value in that scenario, then why keep him in a lineup that has Cup aspirations?

 

I think he would still have some value to a non-playoff team that thinks they might be able to extract offense out of him in a different setting and role. Examples: Kakko to San Jose for Duclair or Kakko to Anaheim for Vatrano. Maybe even get a mid round pick added in the return. If I'm either of those teams, I'd roll the dice on Kakko instead of getting a 3rd round pick that those guys would get otherwise.

 

Because he doesn't hurt the team, even if he doesn't help. He's basically end-of-career Rick Nash. He'll give you 200 feet every night, every shift, never complain, and never really cost you anything defensively. The offense is extremely limited, but everything I just wrote is still a positive when you think of the alternatives. It's been a revolving door of bad options all year.

 

In both trade scenarios you're proposing, the math gets really tight, really quickly. I'm not sure they can actually get Vatrano at all if Chytil returns. I haven't done the calculations in a while, but I'm fairly certain that with Kakko back and Chytil potentially returning in-season, they'll have right around a million dollars in available cap room to them at the deadline. Kakko is only $2.1 million. That's $3.1 million, give or take, and Vatrano alone is $3.65 million. You'd also have zero margin for error in this case.

 

I'm not against them trading him, but that really isn't a conversation for me until this current deal expires, and that's based almost entirely on the fact that I just don't care to sign defense-only players to danger zone deals. I just don't see the value. We're seeing how badly that can hurt your cap balance with a guy like Goodrow on the books at the price he's at.

[Pete]

I think you can't trade players like this unless you think you've seen the best of them. We learned this with Lafreniere. Sure, he needs support from superior players but what 22/23 year old doesn't? Byfield surely does.

 

Look, we didn't get Bedard with these guys. Let's get over it. (We've said this before)

 

If anyone thinks we've seen the best of Kakko, I think they're crazy. At worst he won't be expensive and he'll be Jesper Fast with more offensive upside. Completely reliable in his own end, incredible work ethic, etc.

 

If having him on MZ and CK right side leads to those 2 guys getting going ES, I don't care if Kakko never records another point (and we all know he will, you don't get drafted #2 as a Euro unless you can play, he's played against men earlier than Lafreniere did).

 

He's got more to give, either on L1 or L3.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

I think you can't trade players like this unless you think you've seen the best of them. We learned this with Lafreniere. Sure, he needs support from superior players but what 22/23 year old doesn't? Byfield surely does.

 

Look, we didn't get Bedard with these guys. Let's get over it. (We've said this before)

 

If anyone thinks we've seen the best of Kakko, I think they're crazy. At worst he won't be expensive and he'll be Jesper Fast with more offensive upside. Completely reliable in his own end, incredible work ethic, etc.

 

If having him on MZ and CK right side leads to those 2 guys getting going ES, I don't care if Kakko never records another point (and we all know he will, you don't get drafted #2 as a Euro unless you can play, he's played against men earlier than Lafreniere did).

 

He's got more to give, either on L1 or L3.

 

I'm with you right up to "...with more offensive upside." Right now, based on what we've seen, there's no reason to believe there's any more offense coming. I'm open to being wrong on that (and I hope I am), but I think it's completely pragmatic to assume he's a maximum 40-point player because that's the best he's done.

 

The sticking point for me is the next deal, not this one. I have basically no interest in trading him right now because I just don't think they'll get a better player for less (or even the same AAV). When it comes time to give him another raise, we can revisit.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I'm with you right up to "...with more offensive upside." Right now, based on what we've seen, there's no reason to believe there's any more offense coming. I'm open to being wrong on that (and I hope I am), but I think it's completely pragmatic to assume he's a maximum 40-point player because that's the best he's done.

 

The sticking point for me is the next deal, not this one. I have basically no interest in trading him right now because I just don't think they'll get a better player for less (or even the same AAV). When it comes time to give him another raise, we can revisit.

Of course there's reason to believe. I just said it, you don't get drafted #2 by accident.

 

His only season that wasn't riddled with injury, he was a 40pt player at 22. You think that's as good as it gets? Come on.

Edited January 18 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

Laffy has raised production every year and was only through 3 years when folks were writing him off. Kakko has taken a significant step back this year, and it's his 5th year. I'm a lot less confident that Kakko has more to give, than I was that Lafreniere did.

[Pete]

Laffy had no clear skill set.

 

In many ways he still doesn't have a real defined identity, is he a phenomenal one-on-one player? Is he a phenomenal passer? Is he a phenomenal shooter? He's still searching for his identity. 

 

Kakko passed the eyeball test for many people, Lavvy included. The offense is there based on the metrics. It's just the conversion that isn't. That's why he was immediately reinserted on the top line after the injury. 

 

That was never the case for Lafreniere. 

Edited January 18 by Pete

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

Of course there's reason to believe. I just said it, you don't get drafted #2 by accident.

 

His only season that wasn't riddled with injury, he was a 40pt player at 22. You think that's as good as it gets? Come on.

 

"Was drafted high," isn't a reason to believe. It's a reason to hope, maybe, but not to believe. Not for me. Play is reason to believe. Underlying numbers, maybe. Year-over-year progress.

 

A lot of guys get taken high and never amount to what they were projected to (for a variety of reasons). Benoit Pouliot, Pat Falloon, Kris Beech, Taylor Pyatt, Tuomo Ruutu, etc.

[Pete]

Just now, Phil said:

 

"Was drafted high," isn't a reason to believe. It's a reason to hope, maybe, but not to believe. Not for me. Play is reason to believe. Underlying numbers, maybe. Year-over-year progress.

 

A lot of guys get taken high and never amount to what they were projected to (for a variety of reasons). Benoit Pouliot, Pat Falloon, Kris Beech, Taylor Pyatt, Tuomo Ruutu, etc.

Well if underlying numbers are a driver, his are fantastic. It's just a matter of time.

 

You're a pessimistic person by nature, so I'm not going to relitigate this with you again. We've had this conversation before. Only time will tell. 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Laffy had no clear skill set.

 

In many ways he still doesn't have a real defined identity, is he a phenomenal one-on-one player? Is he a phenomenal passer? Is he a phenomenal shooter? He's still searching for his identity. 

 

Kakko passed the eyeball test for many people, Lavvy included. The offense is there based on the metrics. It's just the conversion that isn't. That's why he was immediately reinserted on the top line after the injury. 

 

That was never the case for Lafreniere. 

 

The offense isn't there. He's a career 11.7% shooter who put up a career year of 18 goals and 40 points shooting 14.4%. Career 52.6 CF% (53.1% in his career year), career 101.0 PDO (101.2 in his career year). His ice time is basically identical year-over-year.

 

What metrics indicate there's more here than we've seen?

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Well if underlying numbers are a driver, his are fantastic. It's just a matter of time.

 

You're a pessimistic person by nature, so I'm not going to relitigate this with you again. We've had this conversation before. Only time will tell. 

 

I agree, but they don't map to results. It's still hope. See my last post for more context on that.

 

I'm fine passing on the argument, though, if you'd rather not get into it again.

[Pete]

23 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

The offense isn't there. He's a career 11.7% shooter who put up a career year of 18 goals and 40 points shooting 14.4%. Career 52.6 CF% (53.1% in his career year), career 101.0 PDO (101.2 in his career year). His ice time is basically identical year-over-year.

 

What metrics indicate there's more here than we've seen?

No, I don't want to continue to litigate this, but just to put a cap on the conversation... All he really has to do is improve his decision making on when to shoot. His best year was 125 SOG. That's less than a shot per game. If you could get it closer to two shots per game, he'd be much better in the boxcar stats. He's got a great shot, he just doesn't know when to use it. That's an easy fix. 

[Jdog99]

don't see why we wouldn't stick with him as long as the price more closely matches production as opposed to his 2OA status

[Phil]

25 minutes ago, Pete said:

No, I don't want to continue to litigate this, but just to put a cap on the conversation... All he really has to do is improve his decision making on when to shoot. His best year was 125 SOG. That's less than a shot per game. If you could get it closer to two shots per game, he'd be much better in the boxcar stats. He's got a great shot, he just doesn't know when to use it. That's an easy fix. 

 

Maybe, yeah. That's worked well for Lafreniere so far (though I think we both agree that's heavily fueled by playing with Panarin).

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Of course there's reason to believe. I just said it, you don't get drafted #2 by accident.

 

His only season that wasn't riddled with injury, he was a 40pt player at 22. You think that's as good as it gets? Come on.

 

The Rangers fired their Euro scouting staff a couple of years ago.

 

Kakko was probably reason #1 on that list although there were others.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Br4d said:

The Rangers fired their Euro scouting staff a couple of years ago.

 

Kakko was probably reason #1 on that list although there were others.

 

Andersson + Kravtsov.

[Br4d]

Just now, Phil said:

 

Andersson + Kravtsov.

 + Kakko

[Phil]

I don't see how he applies at all. I think it's entirely reasonable to be disappointed with what he's been as an NHL player, but he was a consensus pick. The others were not and exploded in the Rangers' face.

[siddious]

1 minute ago, Br4d said:

 

The Rangers fired their Euro scouting staff a couple of years ago.

 

Kakko was probably reason #1 on that list although there were others.

Kakko was the consensus #2 pick and some argued he should go #1.

 

did you really want the rangers going off the board again?

 

again the issue with him and laf wasn’t drafting, it’s been development. 
 

If you wanna shit on euro drafting then I think you need to look at kravtsov (someone should have gotten fired for that pick alone) and Anderson (someone.. you get it)

[Br4d]

36 minutes ago, Pete said:

No, I don't want to continue to litigate this, but just to put a cap on the conversation... All he really has to do is improve his decision making on when to shoot. His best year was 125 SOG. That's less than a shot per game. If you could get it closer to two shots per game, he'd be much better in the boxcar stats. He's got a great shot, he just doesn't know when to use it. That's an easy fix. 

 

Kakko is not in position to shoot often enough to significantly raise his SOG.

 

The best thing the Rangers could do for him right now is get him out of the habit of playing with himself in the corner.  Yes, he possesses the puck fairly well.  No, he can't get around NHL defenses to turn that into a shot very often and no, he is not a great passer out of that position either.

 

Basically what he's good for right now is 15 seconds of possession in the OZ.  He has no offensive moves worth mentioning.

 

He's a black hole in the OZ.