Gee, that aged well, didn't it? Less than a month after yours truly predicted Chris Drury wouldn't make any big splashes at the trade deadline, he did the exact opposite - twice! I've already addressed the Tarasenko trade so no need to rehash that. The Kane trade, however, deserves a full-throated mea culpa.
But before I do that, let's get something straight. The idea that acquiring Kane was in the Rangers plan all along is patently absurd. If you seriously believe for a moment that last year's runner up to the Jim Gregory award would allow his head coach to go almost an entire game with only four defensemen available to him and would go through the most bizarre cap gymnastics we've seen in the salary cap era, all as part of some master plan to land arguably the greatest American ever to lace up a pair of skates in the NHL, you must think he's an idiot.
The fact is Kane was never in the Rangers plan. Once the Tarasenko deal was done, Drury moved on to address his fourth line. Reacquiring Tyler Motte from Ottawa with no salary retention was the first step in a two-step process; the second step was likely going to be either Nick Bjugstad or Sam Lafferty. Both players are natural centers and would've allowed Barclay Goodrow to return to the wing where he's better suited. By all accounts, both Drury and Gerard Gallant were fine with Jimmy Vesey on the first line. The fact that Drury made no provisions to take on a large contract is proof that nothing big was imminent.
There's only one reason why Patrick Kane is a Ranger today. He insisted on it. With just days left before the trade deadline, he ostensibly backed his G.M. into a corner. Broadway or bust. And Kyle Davidson, rather than lose him for nothing, wisely chose Broadway. Credit Drury for not ceding the leverage he had. He got Kane without surrendering a first round pick, a single player off his roster or any of his prized prospects. The return haul - a couple of low-level prospects, a conditional '23 second round pick, a '25 fourth rounder, and a '25 third rounder to Arizona for acting as a third-party broker - is less than what he gave up to acquire Andrew Copp a year ago. If that's your idea of an idiot, you need a new dictionary.
But even with all that going for him, Drury still could've said no. Having Bjugstad or Lafferty center the fourth line would've made the Rangers a much better checking team. And make no mistake about it: checking is what wins championships. The Boston Bruins - the runaway Presidents trophy winner - are notoriously good at checking their opponents. While the Rangers may have solidified their top six, the Bruins solidified their bottom six as well as their D by acquiring Garnet Hathaway and Dmitry Orlov. The Tampa Bay Lightning may have overpaid for Tanner Jeannot, but they now have arguably the toughest bottom six in the league, not to mention the best money goaltender in the game.
Let's not kid ourselves. Drury is taking a huge risk here. If these elite players don't jell, if they continue to cough up the puck in their own end, and if Igor Shesterkin doesn't regain his Vezina trophy form, this "all-star" team will be shown the door but fast come playoff time. The New Jersey Devils, by landing Timo Meier, are now considered the favorites to beat the Blueshirts in their first-round matchup.
Look, is this a better team than last year's. In a word, yes. Wouldn't you much rather have Patrick Kane, Vladimir Tarasenko, Vincent Trocheck, Jimmy Vesey and Niko Mikkola than Frank Vatrano, Andrew Copp, Ryan Strome, Ryan Reaves and Justin Braun? Of course you would. But being better on paper is one thing; being better on the ice is quite another. Kane was having an off year before he got hot over his last four games, and Tarasenko hasn't exactly lit up the scoring sheet since his arrival. There's a lot riding on both these former Stanley Cup champions.
This will be Gallant's toughest test as a coach. How well he handles it will go a long way towards determining whether Rangers fans celebrate in June or cry in April.
No comments:
Post a Comment