Question #146: How will the Rangers handle prosperity?
-
- January
- 27
Sam Weinman, our always-excellent Rangers beat writer, mentions in his story today that the Rangers are in a somewhat different position at the start of this second half than they’ve been in previous years. As opposed to being in a more desperate scenario, where a playoff spot seems like a real question, the Rangers begin their final few months in a very good spot: On the edge of first place in the Atlantic Division and on the edge of second place in the entire Eastern Conference.
So what happens now? The Rangers have come back from those less-than-desirable spots to make the playoffs but have been a postseason disappointment. Is this the year they make a run?
What do you think, Carp? What do you see for the Rangers come springtime?
CARP SAYS:
I don’t know about a run this year. I don’t think this Rangers team is more likely to make a long run than either of the previous two years, and those teams fizzled out in the second round.
We’ve had this discussion, to a degree, before. The Rangers’ record is inflated by shootouts, they don’t score enough on a consistent basis, their defense is mostly soft, and their power play is streaky at best and dreadful at worst.
They will, of course, have a shot against any opponent in any series because they play a team game—although the defense-first idea gets lost sometimes—and because they have a goalie who can pull them through any given night or any given series.
Of course it’s not impossible that they get on a roll and go to the conference final or, dare we say, the Cup final. But they don’t have a better shot than any of the other eight or 10 or more contenders.
And I don’t see the salary cap maneuverability for them to get major help at the deadline.
11:05 a.m., Sam says:
I don’t know, Carp. I feel more optimistic than you do, even though I know I might be reaching a little.
Obviously this isn’t the NFL, where defense (almost) always wins. But defense does go a long way in the NHL and the fact that the Rangers are where they are right now while only scoring 2 1/2 goals a game seems like a good indicator to me. Put it this way: I’d rather have a team that’s near the top while struggling on offense than one that’s near the top while struggling on defense. Seems to me that the defense is the harder part.
Then again, that’s probably a good question to debate, too: Which would you rather have? In football, everyone would take the better defensive team. In baseball, everyone (I think) would take the better pitching team and hope the offense comes around. Same thing in hockey, right?
So if that’s true, then I can hang my hat on Henrik and the grind-it-out mentality of the Rangers defenders, and hope that there’s an offensive surge in the second half that gets the Rangers where they need to go. Is it likely? Maybe not. But I like this set-up and this make-up more than I have in the past few years for sure.
CARP SAYS:
Don’t misunderstand. Keeping the goals-against low, and being able to stifle or contain explosive opponents is far more important than scoring in the playoffs. You will win a lot more series with defense and goaltending than you will with offense.
But in the playoffs, all the teams try to play that way, so you’d better be able to score a few goals, too. That 2 1/2 you score per game during the season is probably 2 or fewer in the playoffs, and if you recall, the inability to get a big goal when it counted is what KO’d the Rangers in the Buffalo series two years ago, and what hurt them in the second round last year … that and the inability to stop Pittsburgh’s big gunners.
Those last two Rangers teams had some scoring, especially last year’s team with Jagr, Straka, Shanahan, Gomez and Drury. Jagr made Dubinsky and some of the players around him more offensive, too. Now it’s Gomez and Drury and a prayer that the grinders chip in. In the playoffs, you have to have the goals the Rangers got from the Callahans and the Averys in the first round last year, but you also have to have some snipers like the Penguins and Red Wings had throughout the four rounds.
Offense more important than defense in the playoffs? Absolutely not. But you can’t win if you can’t score unless King Henrik throws a whole bunch of shutouts. And, again, there are no shootouts once the tournament begins.
12:15 p.m., Sam says:
Great comments so far, and one of the questions asked was how the Rangers match-up against some of their potential first-round opponents. Obviously the biggest issue they face against any likely team is the lack of star vs. opposing star. In other words, while Washington has Ovechkin, the Rangers don’t have that might-explode-at-any-given-moment player on their team.
My thought is that’s when the defense will have to be in overdrive. You’re right, Carp, that most teams go into a defensive shell in the postseason anyway, but the Rangers could – should? – have an advantage by playing that style for what would be going-on five months at that point. Is that plus Henrik enough to push them deep?
CARP SAYS:
No doubt, having played that way all year is a plus … teams that don’t play well defensively can’t just flip that switch on April 1. But those teams who succeed with that get goals from their plumbers and have one or two star scorers who can impact any game any night, either on the power play or at even strength. Tell me who those scorers are on this team?
I don’t see them going deep. I just don’t. They will make the playoffs and could go out first round or second. They could go all the way, too, but that’s like being in a raffle. Any of the 16 teams could go deep. But only four will go to the conference final.
What makes me or you or anybody think the Rangers—based on what they are and what they’ve done to this point, or what they could become down the stretch—will be one of those four? And is winning two rounds and then going home really a great achievement anyway?
The Rangers are in a bit of a situation here. IMO, they seem to be in a similar position that the Jets always seem to find themselves in. Can’t score on a regular basis. Can’t stay healthy. And they ran into a streak of good luck by mid season. Theres’ too much hit or miss for me to say without any reservation that the Rangers are a can’t miss for the playoffs. But then this is hockey, where missing the playoffs is like asking a diver standing on a pillar in the middle of the pacific ocean to not hit water.
I don’t think there’s much question that they ought to make the playoffs. But they haven’t been past the second round since 1997. Can they finally do that?
their power play has to improve dramatically to have any chance of getting anywhere in the playoffs. You can’t go 0-6 or 0-3 in a playoff game and expect to win.
I don’t think this is their year and likely the next few years wont be either b/c of the horrendous job sather has done (see redden, roszival, drury…)
Rick and Sam,
Agree more with Rick. Last year and the year before they seemed more capable of a long run. No one in the East is dominant yet the Rangers don’t match up well with a lot of the teams.
Can’t see them beating Boston, Montreal or Washington in the first round. Devils will be real tough too and they will be gunning for NY.
1st round exit is more likely than a trip to the conf. semis.
What do you guys think about how they matchup with other teams?
Thanks.
The one constant with the 07-08 Rangers team that differs significantly from this year’s team is promise.
Last year, night in and night out (win or loss) you always felt the Rangers had one more gear they could kick it into to go on a serious tear. Even in the lowest of moments (Montreal loss) there was promise that the talent would eventually max out and we’d be unbeatable. At time, we often were. When Jagr was at his best, Hank locked in the soldiers hustling, the Rangers were a very tough team to beat.
This year I don’t feel any promise. I feel we’re maxed out. This is as good as the Rangers can be. There’s no promise that they’re going to get better b/c they’re at their best right now, for better or worse.
It’s a matter of personnel. Even if the Redden’s and Rossival’s of the world stepped their games up and played significantly better, we’re not THAT MUCH of a better team.
These aren’t 40 goal scorers in a slump; they’re predominantly slightly above average D-men playing below average.
Same goes for Scott Gomez and Chris Drury; they’re “B” level, second tier, should be 2/3 line players.
Same with Nigel Dawes, Ryan Callahan, Peter Prucha and Freddy Shoes… they’re “C” level players. They are what they are. Too good for the AHL, more talent then 4th liners, but never will be top 2 line caliber players.
So, in essence, this team has a cieling. Last year’s team didn’t. Even 2 years ago, that team didn’t either.
Why? We had A-listers. Jagr could take games over on his own, Shannahan knew how to score big goals; even Martin Straka had a significant impact on a nightly basis.
We traded thos guys in for average. We don’t have a go-to-guy and when this team doesn’t play perfect, they’re highly flawed.
That being said… get rid of the dead weight, sign a sniper and a bruisng D-man and you’re a contender.
The 93 Canadiens were a team that lacked star power, with the exception of Roy. Now, I am not saying that these Rangers compare to that team. Hardly. However, if things click properly, that is the most the Rangers could hope for. To do that, they need more scoring on the PP and from the defense. Also, Henrik needs to be unreal for 4 rounds.
Ultimately, this team is really a sniper and a stud defenseman away from being a threat. Zherdev has the skill, but not the history to be that sniper. Staal is two years away from being that defenseman.
Gomez is really the odd man out. There haven’t been any wingers who have played well with him. He is a good player, but not without the right players surrounding him. If the Rangers could trade him (highly doubtful with that contract) for a sniper, they may be on their way to being a bigger offensive threat. Still, very few (probably none) teams are trading away goal scorers that can lift a team to a new place.
I think their payroll is too inflexible to initiate any kind of trade… sniper or otherwise.
Well put, Brandon. This is probably as good as it’s going to get … and yet they are probably only two impact players away from being really good.
Sunny,
The Rangers have been one of the healthiest teams this year. The biggest injury was when Gomez missed 5 games with his leg injury. That is not an issue…they are one of the more well-conditioned teams in the league.
I couldn’t agree with Brandon more. There is not enough skill or scoring on this team when it’s all said and done.
It’s AMAZING to me that people bash Renney and say things like “they should be playing a more offensive-minded system with this roster.” HOW??? There isn’t one player on this team that can even come close to 100 points. Maybe two guys will crack 30 goals. This team HAS to defend and be opportunistic…it has no other choice. And yet people think Renney has it backwards. I don’t know what roster they’re looking at.
unfortunately dont see how we can get those two impact players in the next four or five years. sather already signed his idea of an impact player (redden) and he is right that redden is making an impact, it’s just not a positive one
Carp, first may I say that I miss your coverage of the Rangers my hometown newspaper; The Standard Star/The Journal News!! I loved your take on my favorite team and felt your opinion of the team was the most accurate of all the Ranger beat writers. No offense, Sam!!! Onto the Rangers playoff aura; they are what they are. Mostly all the fans commenting here and elsewhere get it; the Rangers are what they are now. There are no big stars that can rip one off in a tight game; the lack of an effective PP in the playoffs is deadly as officiating gets more “selective”. When you get 3 PP’s a game, ya’ gotta come through on one. I’m sure we all will agree that 0 for 3 is more the Rangers MO. All teams play tighter defense in the playoffs; it’s almost uncanny how you see the switch. Guys become more responsible in their own end and take less chances than they do in the regualr season. Not a big light switch, Carp, for these pros to flip come April 1. And yes, the Rangers are playing a defense first system all year but bigger, faster, more intense hockey in our own zone come playoff time is a bit scary! As far as last year, Jagr played his best hockey in the playoffs (thanks for showing up in the regular season, Jaromir) but Shanny was a shell of himself in the playoffs and Marty Straka was virtually invisible. Henrik will steal some games for our team in the playoffs but special teams on offense AND defense are huge in the playoffs!!! Our offense will have to do because Sather has left no wiggle room under the cap by obtaining 3-4 third line players for no reason at all!!!! And giving Redden 6 years borders on insanity (or inebriation @ the time). I love this Face off feature boys!! Great stuff for us sports junkies! Keep it goin’!!
Carp, a couple of quick notes:
The Rangers will miss that guy named Jagr come playoff time (they rufuse to admit that they already do).
They won’t go deep because half of their “D,” plays soft, with no pulse and waits for Henrik to bail them out.
It’s not an accident that Prucha scored 30 goals his rookie year, when he had a good playmaker (Nylander) passing him the puck. If Renney plays him with someone who can pass the puck, he will score…more than Voros, Fritsche, Korpy and the 4th line combined, I suggest some powerplay time too.