Drury Has His Coach. Now Comes the Hard Part

Five weeks after he fired Gerard Gallant, Chris Drury finally hired his replacement. Let's be clear: Peter Laviolette is no Scotty Bowman; nor is he Al Arbour, or, for that matter, Toe fucking Blake. But based on his resume alone, he was the best option available.

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.

Now What?

To say this Rangers season was a colossal failure would be putting it mildly. Going into game seven against the New Jersey Devils Monday night, the Rangers knew they had to do two things: 1. Not let the Devils run them ragged around the hockey rink; and 2. Score on the power play. They did neither.

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?