For all intents and purposes, this game was over in the first period. The Blueshirts went 0 for 3 on the power play and were thoroughly outplayed from the opening puck drop. It was only through the sheer brilliance of Igor Shesterkin - who with a GAA of 1.96 and a SV% of .931 deserved a better outcome - that the score wasn't 3-0 New Jersey going into the second.
This series in many ways was a microcosm of the Rangers season. When they played against teams that gave them the room to create, they lit them up like a Christmas tree. But when they played against teams that knew how to check and took away their passing lanes, they struggled to generate offense. Just look at the scores in this series; they tell the whole tale. In the games they won (one, two and six) they outscored New Jersey by a combined 15-4. In the games they lost (three, four, five and seven) New Jersey outscored them by a combined 13-2. Worse, their power play, which had played such an integral role in their success during the regular season, went 5-14 (35%) in the three wins, but a woeful 0-14 in the four losses.
So what went wrong? How did the most talented Rangers team in over a generation get booted in the first round?
For starters, it's time to admit the obvious. Despite the success of last year's postseason, this was and is a flawed team. Talented, yes, but flawed nonetheless. Their inability or unwillingness to play a north-south stye of hockey that is demanded of all Stanley Cup contenders proved to be their Waterloo. Think back to the Eastern Conference finals against the Tampa Bay Lightning. After he lost game two, Jon Cooper put the Cirelli line out against the Zibanejad line and the result was that the Rangers managed just one even strength goal the rest of the series.
Another problem that has consistently plagued this team is its lack of grit. In short, they still struggle to win battles in the corners and along the boards. Again, when they play against porous teams, they're fine; when they have to work to retrieve the puck, that's another story. All the more reason to question the decision to trade for Vladimir Tarasenko and Patrick Kane. Yes, both are incredibly talented players; the latter is arguably the greatest American ever to lace up a pair of hockey skates. But talent was never a problem for the Rangers; intestinal fortitude was.
Just take a look at the greatest Rangers team of all time. That 1994 team, by any reasonably objective standard, was not the most talented team to ever take the ice. Indeed, the '92 team that was ousted in the second round by the Pittsburgh Penguins was much more talented. But what the '94 team lacked in talent, it more than made up for in guts. They weren't just seasoned veterans; they were warriors who were used to the rigors of a long and grueling postseason. That team had the heart of a lion, and through sheer force of will, they brought a Cup home to a city that hadn't seen one since 1940.
Where are the Messiers, the Graves, the Matteaus, the Tikkanens, the MacTavishes, the Beukabooms on this Rangers team? Don't bother looking because they're not there. In fact, so long as we're being honest here, this team more closely resembles the '92 team - sans Messier and Graves - than the '94 team. Like I said, talented but flawed.
So now what? Where does GM Chris Drury go from here?
Clearly, Drury has some tough decisions ahead of him. Does he fire Gerard Gallant? If so, who does he bring in to replace him? What roster moves does he make? Does he tweak the lineup or are more drastic changes needed? Let's go through them one by one.
The head coach:
Two years ago, before Gallant was hired, I thought it would be a good idea for Drury to at least interview Rod Brind'Amour and Rick Tocchet. Brind'Amour's contract with the Carolina Hurricanes was expiring and he was available, while Tocchet had managed to get an Arizona Coyotes team that was barely north of an AHL roster into the qualifying round of the 2020 playoffs. Both men - especially Brind'Amour - are widely respected coaches who excel at Xs and Os; something Gallant is not particularly adept at. But Drury opted to go with "the bird in the hand," as I wrote back then.
A players' coach, Gallant was the polar opposite of his predecessor, David Quinn. Not only did he make the playoffs last year, but he had the most wins by a first-year Rangers coach since Mike Keenan in '94. But the struggles that plagued them that year became exacerbated this year. An early-season slump led many to speculate that Gallant's days were numbered. After the Jacob Trouba helmet throwing incident against Chicago, the Rangers turned their season around, thus saving Gallant's job. But now with this humiliating defeat at the hands of the Devils, it's no better than 50/50 whether he survives. And that's a shame, considering he was one win shy of being the first coach in franchise history to reach 100 wins in his first two seasons behind the bench.
So who would replace Gallant? Joel Quenneville's name has come up. The former Chicago Blackhawks and Florida Panthers head coach certainly has the credentials. He guided the Blackhawks to three Cups over a six-year period. It's his checkered past that is problematic. At best, he ignored the sexual assault scandal that rocked the Blackhawks organization and shocked the hockey community; at worst, he helped cover it up. Either way, it would not be a good look for the Rangers to hire him. Knowing James Dolan, I wouldn't put it past him to do just that. Assuming Gary Bettman reinstates Quenneville, he would be the odds-on favorite if a change is made.
Tarasenko and Kane:
There's been some speculation about keeping one of these two UFAs on a team-friendly deal. Hopefully, that's all it is: speculation. Frankly, neither contributed much since their arrival; in fact, their presence likely hurt the team chemistry, particularly the power play. The gymnastics Drury had to subject this team to just to fit Kane in under the cap became something of a running joke throughout the league. It was one of the few times during his tenure that he forced a square peg into a round hole, which leads me to believe that maybe Dolan had something to do with it.
What Drury needs to do is let both players go and use the cap savings to re-sign his own RFAs over the summer. There's a reason why they're called rentals and not purchases. The smart move is to give more ice time to Alexis Lafeniere and Kaapo Kakko, and bring up Will Cuylle and Brennan Othmann. If the Devils proved anything in this series it's that youth and inexperience aren't the liabilities some think they are.
Panarin:
While the Bread Man is unquestionably the most talented player on this team, and one of the league's elite playmakers, he is also the Mike Gartner of this generation. A great regular season player who wilts under the spotlight of the playoffs. He had two measly assists in the Devils series and frequently turned the puck over in the offensive and neutral zones.
His $11.6 million salary is the largest on the team, and even if Panarin would be open to waiving his no-move clause, Drury would have a hard time finding a team with sufficient space to accommodate his cap hit. And those teams that do have the cap space, would probably be teams Panarin would not agree to go to.
But let's be optimistic and say there's a team willing to take on Panarin's contract - with a little salary retention by Drury - that Panarin would agree to go to. The Rangers could use that money to add some size to their lineup. Maybe Drury can finally get the checking center he's been after since he became President and GM. Both Sam Lafferty and Nick Bjugstad were supposedly on his short list at the trade deadline before he got distracted by Kane. As good as Barclay Goodrow is, he's not a natural center; his talents are better suited as a winger.
The Kid line:
It is time to shit or get off the pot for this trio. Assuming Drury re-signs Lafreniere - be it a bridge deal or something similar to what Filip Chytil got - the Rangers must find out what they have with these players. Chytil finally had a breakout year in his fifth season, while both Kakko and Lafreniere showed definite signs of improvement. Regardless of who is behind the bench next season, it is imperative that all three get more ice time, either as a unit or on different lines.
For those who feel that Drury should trade Lafreniere. I would caution against doing that. Having lived through both the John Ferguson and Phil Esposito eras, the last thing this organization needs is another Rick Middleton or Mike Ridley flourishing on another team. Even if Othmann does get promoted, there's no guarantee he would be become the player in the NHL that he is in the juniors.
Use the trade deadline the way it was intended next time.
Teams make trades for a variety of reasons, but typically playoff-bound teams use the trade deadline to add complimentary pieces to a roster that is otherwise set. That is precisely what Drury did last season when he acquired Frank Vatrano, Andrew Copp, Tyler Motte and Justin Braun. All four complimented what was already there. Adding Tarasenko and Kane had the opposite affect. Instead of complimentary pieces, Tarasenko and Kane were viewed as mercenaries brought in specifically to deliver the Cup. Just imagine the message that sent in the locker room. You're not good enough so we imported these two future Hall of Famers to save your ass. And people wonder why this team looked lost the last month of the season.
Look at what Toronto and Edmonton did at the deadline. The Leafs acquired Ryan O'Reilly, Noel Acciari and Sam Lafferty, while the Oilers picked up Nick Bjugstad and Mattias Ekholm. All have been solid additions to their respective teams. That's how it's done. Next time around, Drury should stick with what works. Compliment your talent; not supplant it.
Yes, the 2022-23 season didn't end the way it was supposed to. But given the plethora of NMC contracts on the team and the lack of cap space that Drury will have to work with next season, there isn't much he can do to dramatically change this roster short of blowing it up. That would mean another rebuild, and I doubt Dolan would stand for that.
If he does decide to replace the coach, he should go with someone who doesn't have enough baggage to start his own airline; someone who works well with younger players as well as older players; someone who can finally convince players like Panarin and Zibanaejad that playing north-south hockey is in their best interest.
Wonder what Mike Keenan is doing these days?
No comments:
Post a Comment