Player Discussion Jeff Gorton

[Trxjw]

Tell me what it means to you in the context of hockey.

Finally got around to getting on my laptop.

I think character, in the context of hockey, can be boiled down to this: A player who realizes they're part of a team, and their approach to the game embodies that. It doesn't have to mean they're a leader, or a clutch player, or a gritty presence. It just means that they give their all; play for the team; and continue to try and improve themselves.

As much as people don't want to hear it, Tanner Glass has character. He's a guy who spends 95% of the game on the bench, but works his ass off in that 5% of the game, and just does his job. We can certainly debate the merits of that job until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that he embodies what a "character guy" really is.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sidney Crosby has character. I hate him, but there isn't a player in the league that works harder to improve himself day after day.

So while I don't think there's a standard definition in the context of hockey, I'd wager you'd get a similar description of it from most hockey people.

 

[Riche16]

Except Staal was already having a bad season in Carolina by his standards at the time of the trade - 33 points in 63 games. Was that AV's fault too? Cough cough?

Not a bad strategy though - keep a familiar victim as target of our ire.

I think it's more than fair to criticize AV for his player deployment and usage (along with his D system but that's another thread).

E Staal during his short stint here definitely can be included in that criticism.

(For the record I don't think AV is a bad coach)

 

[Tawnos]

Think there was a Brooks report or something around the time that said Gorton was the one who handled the Staal and Girardi extensions

Pretty sure Gorton handled the negotiations, but the decision to re-sign those guys and the budget to do so ultimately falls on Sather.

And in the last few years of Sather as GM, I believe that was often the case. Sather makes the decision and Gorton executes it.

Today, its likely Sather gives input Gorton considers, but the decisions are his.

 

[Off Sides]

I think it's a little early to say that. For all we know they sell this year and go right back to buying UFAs, making futures for vet trades this summer or next year if things look less than promising. That could be their version of a rebuild. There is fan talk about bringing back, Nash, Grabner, trading for Martin, and signing Kovalchuk, if Rangers management has similar ideas I'm not sure I'd call that a rebuild.

It would look more like they tried to retool, failed to make the playoffs, and then decided to call it a rebuild where they end up pretty much having the same team only with some different players.

Feb 9, 2018


We'll see what they do but it seems there is some doubt the Rangers are going to rebuild

Quibbling over whether the Rangers are entering a “complete rebuild” or “aggressive retool” represents a mindless waste of energy. Orchestrating a plunge toward the bottom would be a self-destructive exercise.

Kovalchuk competes. He scores, and he leads...He is the perfect fit for this team that is looking for a peg on which it can hang a new core. He would become a vital piece in short-cutting a building process that can and often does take forever.

 

[Mac n Gs]

It’s been stated since the beginning that they were never going to completely rip the house down to the studs. That would be incredibly stupid considering the young talent they have in place already. IMO, they can and should be playoff contenders next season, but I’m also fine with taking a few steps back to try to add younger, more talented, cost-controlled players.

 

[Flying Puck]

If Jeff Gorton would of gotten rid of AV when he should of we would not be in the position we are today. the Mac/ Miller trade was awful. Girardi has had a great year, Miller has had a great run in Tampa, Nash would of resigned hear for cheap and the Stepan trade looks to be a loss for us. Anderson is not ready and Deangelo will never play hear the way Pionk played. Jeff Gorton is a big problem here.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Finally got around to getting on my laptop.

I think character, in the context of hockey, can be boiled down to this: A player who realizes they're part of a team, and their approach to the game embodies that. It doesn't have to mean they're a leader, or a clutch player, or a gritty presence. It just means that they give their all; play for the team; and continue to try and improve themselves.

As much as people don't want to hear it, Tanner Glass has character. He's a guy who spends 95% of the game on the bench, but works his ass off in that 5% of the game, and just does his job. We can certainly debate the merits of that job until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that he embodies what a "character guy" really is.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sidney Crosby has character. I hate him, but there isn't a player in the league that works harder to improve himself day after day.

So while I don't think there's a standard definition in the context of hockey, I'd wager you'd get a similar description of it from most hockey people.

True. Or anyone who has ever been on a sports team, period. As a personal anecdote, I had a teammate on my high school hockey team who was a real asshole. Just a jerk. Pretty good player, but he had an attitude about everything and didn't put in the work to improve. That stuff grates on a team mentally. Where consciously or not, you don't want to be around guys like that. Its one of those things you can't measure with advanced stats but is certainly a variable in hockey, or any sport, really.

 

[Trxjw]

True. Or anyone who has ever been on a sports team, period. As a personal anecdote, I had a teammate on my high school hockey team who was a real *******. Just a jerk. Pretty good player, but he had an attitude about everything and didn't put in the work to improve. That stuff grates on a team mentally. Where consciously or not, you don't want to be around guys like that. Its one of those things you can't measure with advanced stats but is certainly a variable in hockey, or any sport, really.

I don't even know if you need experience on a team sport to get it. For example I have a developer on my team at work who is incredibly talented; he writes damn near flawless code and can take on big tasks. However, the second you ask him to do something a little outside of his specialty, he shuts down completely and will just bitch and bitch until one of the managers caves and gives his work to someone else. Same idea.

 

[silverfish]

IMO, they can and should be playoff contenders next season

but I’m also fine with taking a few steps back to try to add younger, more talented, cost-controlled players.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Should also note that this is heavily dependent on who they name as the next coach. If it’s someone like Sutter, I see no reason they can’t be vying for a Wild Card spot. I already think they’re better than ~half the EC and this is before we even do anything this offseason

 

[DanielBrassard]

If they bring in Kovalchuk, keep Zucc and 1 of Spooner/Namestnikov, and Chytil/Andersson can be decent NHL'ers, I see no reason we can't compete for a playoff spot. But are those the right decisions for the team long-term? I am not sure.

 

[silverfish]

Should also note that this is heavily dependent on who they name as the next coach. If it’s someone like Sutter, I see no reason they can’t be vying for a Wild Card spot. I already think they’re better than ~half the EC and this is before we even do anything this offseason

There's no reason for this team not to be in the playoffs next year. There's no reason this needs to be 3-5 years of sucking. I haven't heard a good reason for this yet from anyone on HF besides that "it's the only way to build a team".

We have 7 picks in the first three rounds this year. If we're smart, that number can easily jump to 8 or 9. This, with the additions at last year's draft and the trade deadline, that's your prospect pipeline revamp. That's all it needs to be.

Trade some of the extra forwards we have (Spooner) for help on defense, and go to f***ing war. Every post that makes this seem like it needs to be a three year ordeal is overcomplicating everything.

 

[Mac n Gs]

There's no reason for this team not to be in the playoffs next year. There's no reason this needs to be 3-5 years of sucking. I haven't heard a good reason for this yet from anyone on HF besides that "it's the only way to build a team".

We have 7 picks in the first three rounds this year. If we're smart, that number can easily jump to 8 or 9. This, with the additions at last year's draft and the trade deadline, that's your prospect pipeline revamp. That's all it needs to be.

Trade some of the extra forwards we have (Spooner) for help on defense, and go to ****ing war. Every post that makes this seem like it needs to be a three year ordeal is overcomplicating everything.

Oh it absolutely doesn’t have to be a 3-5 year process. IMO, it shouldn’t be more than 2 considering Lias, Chytil, and our picks this year will need probably see a mix of time between Hartford and the NHL, adjustments under a new coach, and time to gel as a group. I wouldn’t be surprised if we were on a similar track as the Yotes were last year, in that they had a rough start (not saying we will as horrendous as they were) and then hit their stride as a team ~January.

That factors in one more full developmental year for our youngest players, while our other vets will still be in their prime years. There’s no need to #LOSEFORHUGHES.

Just be smart, establish depth, and put our top prospects in a position to succeed. Find a good backup too so we don’t have to run Hank into the ground -maybe Carter Hutton or trade for Jimmy Howard and only play him at MSG since he goes Super Saiyan 4 any time he’s on the Garden ice

 

[Off Sides]

It's just the same thing they already tried, Sather inherited a mess, he made it worse, eventually the cap made him change his ways. They did the Jagr era which will be the Kovalchuk era. Eventually none of that really works either. Onto the Richards, Gaborik and then Nash eras.

Renney a player development coach, Torts pain in the ass coach, AV the finisher, Rangers are looking for a developmental coach according to Dolan.

Which is more stupid, doing the exact same thing again and expecting different results or doing what has worked for nearly every Cup winner since the salary cap who have been doing things differently the whole time?

Fighting against the CBA which rewards bad, by being mediocre is going to lead to the same results.

 

[Harbour Dog]

It's just the same thing they already tried, Sather inherited a mess, he made it worse, eventually the cap made him change his ways. They did the Jagr era which will be the Kovalchuk era. Eventually none of that really works either. Onto the Richards, Gaborik and then Nash eras.

Renney a player development coach, Torts pain in the ass coach, AV the finisher, Rangers are looking for a developmental coach according to Dolan.

Which is more stupid, doing the exact same thing again and expecting different results or doing what has worked for nearly every Cup winner since the salary cap who have been doing things differently the whole time?

Fighting against the CBA which rewards bad, by being mediocre is going to lead to the same results.

We made the finals and won more series' than any other team in that span. If we could follow the same sequence and be at least that competitive again, I'm on board.

 

[MarkMessyay11]

If Jeff Gorton would of gotten rid of AV when he should of we would not be in the position we are today. the Mac/ Miller trade was awful. Girardi has had a great year, Miller has had a great run in Tampa, Nash would of resigned hear for cheap and the Stepan trade looks to be a loss for us. Anderson is not ready and Deangelo will never play hear the way Pionk played. Jeff Gorton is a big problem here.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I think Grotons has been average, not terrible, not great. That can change with the drafting, player movement, if ADA gets better, etc. A little bit wary on contracts but after that I am confident in his abilities.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

If they bring in Kovalchuk, keep Zucc and 1 of Spooner/Namestnikov, and Chytil/Andersson can be decent NHL'ers, I see no reason we can't compete for a playoff spot. But are those the right decisions for the team long-term? I am not sure.

We could compete for a spot with that, and no it doesn’t help the long term plan.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

It's just the same thing they already tried, Sather inherited a mess, he made it worse, eventually the cap made him change his ways. They did the Jagr era which will be the Kovalchuk era. Eventually none of that really works either. Onto the Richards, Gaborik and then Nash eras.

Renney a player development coach, Torts pain in the ass coach, AV the finisher, Rangers are looking for a developmental coach according to Dolan.

Which is more stupid, doing the exact same thing again and expecting different results or doing what has worked for nearly every Cup winner since the salary cap who have been doing things differently the whole time?

Fighting against the CBA which rewards bad, by being mediocre is going to lead to the same results.

Hallelujah!

Someone gets it, and put it succinctly. +5

I mean we aren’t even talking about ancient history , “old boys club”, #tuffnezz here. These were moves that are less than a decade old. Our goalie and well more than half of the players developed and moved during those years are still in the middle of their careers.

We don’t need to dig into the microfilm to analyze bad trades from the 30s to figure this out.

Can I sticky this as a footnote reference for every time I chide someone for wanting a quick rebuild, saying it didn’t work in Edmonton, don’t want to create a losing culture, or other horseshit ?

 

[Off Sides]

We made the finals and won more series' than any other team in that span. If we could follow the same sequence and be at least that competitive again, I'm on board.

I think that is what separates some views from others,

I think the Rangers given their market, ownership, financial stability have many advantages most of the other teams in the league do not, I would like to see them set their sights on building a long term team that could compete in earnest for Championships for an extended 5 or so year window as even if they build in such a manner things will still have to go right (basically anything can happen but only if they are in really solid position for them to happen)

I believe that can only be accomplished by going through a more stripped down rebuilding process.

Without going through the whole process it will always be such an uphill battle they can never reach the top.

I fully understand most of my opinions are not widely shared, It just looks to me like most of the Cup winners since the cap have gone through an extended time of suckage, they took their picks, gained more where they could, eventually that set up having a foundation to use on their team or use through trades to get them to that level. Trying to take shortcuts to avoid the suckage is what in my opinion led to several of the rebuilds not working which are often pointed out, as well as their market, ownership, financial issues playing a part.

I am also of the opinion that the Rangers while they were a good team through their past window was never a roster worthy of winning a Cup, I don't think the loses to the Kings, Tampa, or whoever was bad luck, or can be totally blamed on only a couple players or solely on coaching. I am of the belief that Lundqvist was the primary factor towards their success, but even he could only do so much. Now they are going to possibly be building a team similar to the ones they put in front of Lundqvist yet possibly without him in his prime anymore, and even beyond his playing days asking the next goalie to make up for the difference in skater talent going forward, and it seems like a questionable plan to me should that be the general idea.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I think that is what separates some views from others,

I think the Rangers given their market, ownership, financial stability have many advantages most of the other teams in the league do not, I would like to see them set their sights on building a long term team that could compete in earnest for Championships for an extended 5 or so year window as even if they build in such a manner things will still have to go right (basically anything can happen but only if they are in really solid position for them to happen)

I believe that can only be accomplished by going through a more stripped down rebuilding process.

Without going through the whole process it will always be such an uphill battle they can never reach the top.

I fully understand most of my opinions are not widely shared, It just looks to me like most of the Cup winners since the cap have gone through an extended time of suckage, they took their picks, gained more where they could, eventually that set up having a foundation to use on their team or use through trades to get them to that level. Trying to take shortcuts to avoid the suckage is what in my opinion led to several of the rebuild not working which are often pointed out, as well as their market, ownership, financial issues playing a part.

I am also of the opinion that the Rangers while they were a good team through their past window was never a roster worthy of winning a Cup, I don't think the loses to the Kings, Tampa, or whoever was bad luck, or can be totally blamed on only a couple players or solely on coaching. I am of the belief that Lundqvist was the primary factor towards their success, but even he could only do so much. Now they are going to possibly be building a team similar to the ones they put in front of Lundqvist yet possibly without him in his prime anymore, and even beyond his playing days asking the next goalie to make up for the difference in skater talent going forward seems like a questionable plan to me.

It would be another myopic move for a fickle fan base that’s been going on since the 70s.

It a simple harmonic motion machine of mediocrity.

We are approaching Hooke’s law.

 

[MarkMessyay11]

It's just the same thing they already tried, Sather inherited a mess, he made it worse, eventually the cap made him change his ways. They did the Jagr era which will be the Kovalchuk era. Eventually none of that really works either. Onto the Richards, Gaborik and then Nash eras.

Renney a player development coach, Torts pain in the ass coach, AV the finisher, Rangers are looking for a developmental coach according to Dolan.

Which is more stupid, doing the exact same thing again and expecting different results or doing what has worked for nearly every Cup winner since the salary cap who have been doing things differently the whole time?

Fighting against the CBA which rewards bad, by being mediocre is going to lead to the same results.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the criticism is seriously unfair. Not sure how you can argue against the results of these previous "eras". Obviously the Cup is the ultimate goal, and they didn't achieve that. But in the previous 14 years they've made the playoffs 13 times, played 22 playoff series, reached the ECF 3 times, the Cup finals 1 time, won a President's trophy, finished atop the division 2 times, had 5 100+ point seasons...the list goes on. Again, they didn't win a Cup...but you simply cannot say the organization wasn't successful.

If the next 14 years bring more of the same, even if it's the same exact coaching cycle and recycling of veterans, the possibility of winning a Cup will certainly be there. But I have to think the organization has learned from its previous mistakes, and with more advanced statistics and a younger/more progressive GM, we're already off to a better start than we were back in 2005. We also have a better prospect pool, top 10 draft picks in back to back years, and an opportunity to add another 4 or 5 impact prospects coming up this June. To go along with with other trades, FA signings, etc. Forgive me for being optimistic, but I just don't see another reasonable way to view it.

Going to add this - of course, teams like Pitt, Chicago, etc have had major success building through a serious tank. But players like Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kane, don't come along every single draft...and for every Pittsburgh or Chicago, there's an Edmonton, Buffalo, Colorado, Carolina, Islanders. It's a lot more difficult to claw your way from the bottom of the barrel when the teams around you are continually improving. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong...just disagree with it.

 

[NYR]

Funny gif but his post holds a lot of truth.

Where do you think this team would be had AV been fired after the 1st round loss to the Pens, 2015-16?

 

[MarkMessyay11]

Funny gif but his post holds a lot of truth.

Where do you think this team would be had AV been fired after the 1st round loss to the Pens, 2015-16?

I disagree with that post in its entirety. We can play the "what if" game all we want, but it's all purely opinionated at this point. Who knows where we'd be if AV was fired then...maybe we beat Ottawa the next year and go to the ECF...maybe we don't. If you're suggesting that we would have won the Cup after (possibly) defeating Ottawa, then I'll just agree to disagree on that.

But the fact of the matter is this team was only getting older and tired at that point. Girardi was absolutely atrocious in his last year (and I love G) and he was never going to be worth a fraction of what we were paying him. Stepan's contract was going to be an albatross for a team that desperately needed cap space and an injection of youth, and his NTC was about to kick in. McDonagh was 1 year away from UFA and it was either trade him or pay him... at 30 years old, which would you rather? The Nash point is ridiculous...I don't think it's even worth continuing to justify my difference of opinion. But I find myself having a difficult time disagreeing with any and all moves Gorton has made recently.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Hallelujah!

Someone gets it, and put it succinctly. +5

I mean we aren’t even talking about ancient history , “old boys club”, #tuffnezz here. These were moves that are less than a decade old. Our goalie and well more than half of the players developed and moved during those years are still in the middle of their careers.

We don’t need to dig into the microfilm to analyze bad trades from the 30s to figure this out.

Can I sticky this as a footnote reference for every time I chide someone for wanting a quick rebuild, saying it didn’t work in Edmonton, don’t want to create a losing culture, or other horse**** ?

Wait, so how do you actually want to do this rebuild? What would be your plan of action?

It’s a genuine question, not trying to be sarcastic. Same thing I’ve been trying to do when I ask who you want to be the next coach.