Key word "available." Because if we assume Mike Sullivan wasn't going anywhere - and based on the information coming out of Pittsburgh, ownership didn't think the problem with the Penguins was behind the bench but rather in the front office - and Rod Brind'Amour and Jon Cooper are secure in Carolina and Tampa respectively, the list of candidates from which to choose was considerably small.
There was no way that Drury was going to hire someone with no head coaching experience, so that eliminated Chris Knoblauch and Seattle assistant Jay Leach. And the Patrick Roy rumors were just that: rumors. Drury never even bothered to interview him. As for John Hynes, friendship is a beautiful thing, but it doesn't overcome an otherwise less than stellar coaching career. And even if Joel Quenneville got reinstated by Gary Bettman tomorrow, the baggage he'd bring with him to the Garden would probably be too much, even for James Dolan. Mark Messier? If Glen Sather didn't hire him ten years ago, what makes anyone think Drury was going to do it now? Face it: he'll always be a legend. But not every legend gets to drive the car.
In the end, Drury went with Laviolette because he was the most qualified. Period. Among active head coaches, only Lindy Ruff (834) and Paul Maurice (817) have more wins than Laviolette's 752. He's only the second coach in NHL history to pilot three different teams to the Stanley Cup finals; the other was Bowman. Anyone who has a problem with this hire doesn't know jack shit about hockey.
Yes, he's a retread who's been fired multiple times. Know who else is a retread who's been fired multiple times? Bruce Cassidy (twice) and the aforementioned Maurice (four times). All both men did was guide their respective teams to the Stanley Cup finals this year. Cassidy's former employer - the Boston Bruins - were eliminated in the first round by Maurice's Florida Panthers; while Maurice's former employer - the Winnipeg Jets - lost in the first round to Cassidy's Vegas Golden Knights. How's that for Karma?
For me, the only pertinent question is whether Laviolette can turn this talented group of players into a team capable of competing for the Cup. From what we can gleam from his past, there are two things that distinguish him from Gallant.
One, while technically a players' coach, Laviolette's leash is considerably shorter than Gallant's. If the Rangers struggle out of the gate like they did this season, he isn't likely to be as patient. It's worth noting that even before Jacob Trouba's helmet-throwing incident against the Blackhawks, Drury was starting to have doubts about the nonchalant way that Gallant was handling the team's inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies plagued the Rangers all season long, and things came to a head between both men after the game-four loss in the Devils series.
Two, Laviolette is quite adept at making both in-game and in-series adjustments and is an advocate of matching lines, something Gallant was either too stubborn to do or incapable of doing. Against the Devils this year and the Lightning last year, Gallant was badly out-coached by Ruff and Cooper, both of whom made adjustments that allowed their respective teams to overcome 0-2 deficits and eventually win the series. The Devils series was particularly frustrating because the Rangers, after going 4-10 on the power play in the first two games, went 0-5 in game three. Had they converted on just one of their man-power advantages, they would've gone up 3-0 in the series and likely advanced to the second round.
But short leashes and adjustments notwithstanding, can Laviolette get Artemi Panarin to stop making those risky cross-ice passes in the offensive zone that lead to odd-man rushes the other way? Can he convince Chris Kreider to park his 230 pound carcass in front of the net? Can he persuade Adam Fox to shoot more from the point instead of deferring to others? Can he transform a predictable, if lethal, power play into one that has multiple looks and can survive any adjustment an opposing coach might make? Because if the answer to those questions is no, then we're right back where we started.
And that's where Drury comes in. Now that the coach is in place, the GM has to give him the horses he needs to succeed. That won't be easy. The Rangers have just over $11.7 million in available cap space going into next season with only 14 players under contract. Assuming Drury elects to go with a roster of 22, that comes out to an average of $1.5 million per player. With both Alexis Lafreniere and K'Andre Miller RFAs, Drury will have to decide whether to bridge both or sign one to a long-term deal and bridge the other.
If he chooses to go the latter route, the most likely player to lock up would be Miller. While the third-year defenseman took a step backwards this season, he still has the potential to be a star in this league. A similar deal to what Filip Chytil got ($4.4m x 4) sounds reasonable. Lafreniere would then get the same bridge deal Kaapo Kakko got last year ($2.1m x 2). That leaves $5.2 million to sign a backup goalie, another defenseman and four more forwards. Clearly, Drury will have to shed some salary in order to fill out the roster.
The most likely sacrificial lamb is Barclay Goodrow. The Swiss-army knife, as Gallant once referred to him, is making $3.64 million per season. Given his skill set, that isn't too outlandish, especially when you consider the Calgary Flames are paying Blake Coleman - Goodrow's linemate from his days with the Lightning - $4.9 million per season. But in the flat-cap era, his contract is an albatross around the neck of the organization. With that money Drury could sign someone like Nick Bjugstad for about $1 million. Then he could call up his counterpart in Carolina and inquire about the availability of his nephew Jack. With a cap hit of only $925k, the 23 year old winger would be the ideal fourth liner. That would leave Drury with $1.7 million to add to the $5.2 million in the kitty.
The problem is that Goodrow has a no-trade clause which includes 15 teams, meaning Drury will have a hard time finding a suitable trade partner. If there are no takers, he could always buy him out. The way Goodrow's contract is written, the Rangers would net $200k and $100k in cap space the first two years respectively. But then after that, the cap hit goes up as follows: $1.15m in year three; $3.65m in year four, followed by $1.258m for the next four years. That's a ton of cabbage to doll out for a player that no longer plays for you. With this upcoming season being the first in the last four that the Rangers won't be carrying any dead-cap space, I doubt Drury wants to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor, Jeff Gorton. Then again, with the cap expected to go up considerably over the next few seasons, maybe Drury takes the upfront savings and kicks the can down the road.
So let's say Drury buys out Goodrow. With $7.1 million in available cap space, he can re-sign Tyler Motte and Jaroslav Halak for $1m each; re-sign Niko Mikkola for $1.3m; and give Will Cuylle and Brennan Othmann - $828k and $863k respectively - a shot at making the team. That leaves $2.1 million in reserve for Drury to sign a certain someone who might not be available to play until, say, late winter or early spring, assuming he'd be willing to play for that amount. Drury could place him on LTIR and activate him later.
That would give the Ranges the following roster:
Forwards to start the season:
Kreider, Zibaejad, Lafreniere
Panarin, Trocheck, Vesey
Othmann, Chytil, Kakko
Motte, Bjugstad, Drury
Cuylle
Forwards going into the postseason:
Kreider, Zibaejad, Mystery player
Panarin, Trocheck, Vesey
Lafreniere, Chytil, Kakko
Motte, Bjugstad, Drury
Othmann, Cuylle
Defensemen:
Lindgren, Fox
Miller, Trouba
Mikkola, Schneider
Harper
Goalies:
Shesterkin, Halak
It's not a bad roster, assuming Laviolette can get it to play up to its potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment