Player Discussion David Quinn

[True Blue]

Outcast Ryan Strome is our #2 center but clearly they're doing it the right way

Unfortunately for you, this is also not wise as Strome is playing the role of a 2nd line player and has completely changed his game around under Quinn's watch. And is now playing some of the best hockey of his career. So frankly, who cares where or how he came form? Todd Bertuzzi was also an outcast at one point. So too was Mike Knuble. And the Yankees took a chance on someone named Paul O'Neill.

 

[True Blue]

Every team.
Who blows it up other than EDM because they're too cheap to put money into the team?
NYR don't have that problem..

This avoiding the question that was asked of you. Which team built a powerhouse without a rebuild? Name the team that maintained excellence by constantly retooling? Pittsburgh? Nope. They have seen at least two rebuilds. Chicago? Nope, they went through theirs. Look at where Washington was prior to landing top picks. Boston? Nope, they had some lean years and then made good choices in drafts.

So which teams are you talking about? When asked a specific question, specific answers help.

So now we have a case of several posters gnashing their teeth because Gorton tore it down and is rebuilding. Yet unable to cite examples of teams that had sustained periods of excellence with absolutely no rebuild. And by sustained, I mean being legit Stanley Cup contenders, not middle of the pack teams. To read you guys, the Rangers should have never let Hayes or Nash or franly anyone go. No trades should have been made. There should be no Kakko or Hajek or Fox or Lindgren on the team right now. Keep retooling on the fly. That has worked out so well over the last 80 years.

 

[Tawnos]

The weird thing is that I’m not even sure anyone who objects to this approach has made the claim that Andersson has blown the doors off. It’s typically focused on how he compares to others who have been given longer leashes despite looking as bad, or worse at times.

I’ve found that the more that type of question is raised, the less conviction the pushback tends to have. I think for a lot of people, even on some subconscious level, there’s an element of, “You know what? I really can’t explain it or fully defend it. It is a little a weird.”

At the end of the day they might not have as big of a problem with it as others, but I get the sense that they see it too on some level.

Then there’s the people who just don’t like Andersson period and this whole thing is just right in their wheelhouse. I think they’re definitely the minority. A very vocal minority, and I suspect some of them have multiple accounts, but a minority nonetheless.

"How he compares to others" is where I have a real problem with this conversation. At the root of things, for Quinn, it doesn't seem to matter as much how young players compare to other players as it matters to the people on this message board. This was as true last year as it looks to be this year. There's an obvious limit to that, in terms of meritocracy, but at root I believe it's true. What matters for a young player is less how he compares to others and more how he compares to his own ability in terms of effectiveness. Where a player is in their development is also part of that equation. I have that feeling based on things he's said as well as the way we've seen him handling players. It's also up to the coaching staff to constructively communicate that to the players.

If Lemieux is maximizing his ability for where he is at this stage of his development, then he gets a longer leash. Same is true of Kakko and Howden. I definitely have the feeling that Andersson has been struggling with it. Last year, DeAngelo looked better than Pionk much of the time. But Pionk was about as effective as he was capable of being and DeAngelo was still leaving things on the table, so Pionk got a longer leash that DeAngelo didn't. Once we started seeing more out of DeAngelo, he started getting the longer leash too. So like I've said in other places, given his abilities, Andersson should regularly be the best player on the line he's been on with Haley and Smith. He hasn't been, regardless of how little opportunity he's gotten to show it, and that means his leash has been limited. What's the fix? Is it for Quinn to change his approach to Andersson? Or is it more effective to stay consistent in what you're doing with an individual and these kinds of things tend to fix themselves as kids learn the ropes? The latter approach worked with DeAngelo last year. It worked with Buchnevich last year. Hopefully, it'll work with Andersson this year, because I don't see Quinn as likely to change his approach.

The only other explanations I've seen for why Quinn might be handling Andersson this way can be summed up as "coaches make mistakes," or "Andersson isn't in the team's long-term plans," or "Quinn just doesn't like him." Maybe I've missed one, but none of those really make much sense to me. Not saying that coaches don't ever make mistakes or that no coach has ever just taken a disliking to an individual player, but it doesn't seem like the right answer to me at this particular moment. We don't know how this will turn out. Admittedly, Quinn could be totally irrational here... I just don't see it that way, given the examples I cited from last year. Beyond those explanations, it's just griping about things and not trying to figure out a legitimate reason why.

 

[JHS]

This avoiding the question that was asked of you. Which team built a powerhouse without a rebuild? Name the team that maintained excellence by constantly retooling? Pittsburgh? Nope. They have seen at least two rebuilds. Chicago? Nope, they went through theirs. Look at where Washington was prior to landing top picks. Boston? Nope, they had some lean years and then made good choices in drafts.

So which teams are you talking about? When asked a specific question, specific answers help.

So now we have a case of several posters gnashing their teeth because Gorton tore it down and is rebuilding. Yet unable to cite examples of teams that had sustained periods of excellence with absolutely no rebuild. And by sustained, I mean being legit Stanley Cup contenders, not middle of the pack teams. To read you guys, the Rangers should have never let Hayes or Nash or franly anyone go. No trades should have been made. There should be no Kakko or Hajek or Fox or Lindgren on the team right now. Keep retooling on the fly. That has worked out so well over the last 80 years.

So here's the thing- the reverse logic is just as strong as your "Name teams who have not torn it down first" I've already named several teams( and won't do it again) who have torn it down and can't get the rebuild correct. So for every Pittsburgh there is a Calgary, For every Toronto, there is a Florida.

Rebuilds are not guaranteed paths to success and those of us that are not jumping up and down for this process see that clearly.

 

[True Blue]

So here's the thing- the reverse logic is just as strong as your "Name teams who have not torn it down first" I've already named several teams( and won't do it again) who have torn it down and can't get the rebuild correct. So for every Pittsburgh there is a Calgary, For every Toronto, there is a Florida.

Rebuilds are not guaranteed paths to success and those of us that are not jumping up and down for this process see that clearly.

Sorry, but it is assinine to compare the Rangers to a Florida or Calgary. Market size matters. Ability to trade for specific players and attract other ones matter. Franchises are completely different.

 

[Tawnos]

So here's the thing- the reverse logic is just as strong as your "Name teams who have not torn it down first" I've already named several teams( and won't do it again) who have torn it down and can't get the rebuild correct. So for every Pittsburgh there is a Calgary, For every Toronto, there is a Florida.

Rebuilds are not guaranteed paths to success and those of us that are not jumping up and down for this process see that clearly.

Everyone is aware that rebuilds aren't guaranteed. But they are successful far more often than indefinitely propping up a formerly competitive team whose window has closed.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Sorry, but it is assinine to compare the Rangers to a Florida or Calgary. Market size matters. Ability to trade for specific players and attract other ones matter. Franchises are completely different.

I don't know...you saw the difficulty the Rangers had signing Trouba and Fox after they traded for them? Oh, wait...

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I don't know...you saw the difficulty the Rangers had signing Trouba and Fox after they traded for them? Oh, wait...

You mean the same players that basically said they were only willing to play for the Rangers?

 

[Ghost of jas]

You mean the same players that basically said they were only willing to play for the Rangers?

Can I also include the likes of Richards, Shattenkirk and Panarin, who took less money to play for the Rangers? Or Nash, who used his NTC to get himself to the Rangers? Because the ability to sign players isn’t an issue for the Rangers.

 

[True Blue]

You mean the same players that basically said they were only willing to play for the Rangers?

Somehow signing or trading for players has never been an issue for the Rangers. Ever.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Somehow signing or trading for players has never been an issue for the Rangers. Ever.

Never. Ironically it's been to their own detriment most of the time.

 

[True Blue]

Never. Ironically it's been to their own detriment most of the time.

Not going to argue that fact. Bobby Holik anyone? How about Kasperitis?

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Not going to argue that fact. Bobby Holik anyone? How about Kasperitis?

Lol, the list is long and distinguished.

 

[Edge]

Never. Ironically it's been to their own detriment most of the time.

This is VERY true.

 

[romba]

Not going to argue that fact. Bobby Holik anyone? How about Kasperitis?

Summers were like Christmas back then, hearing the trickled rumors through the grapevine in summer camp of who the Rangers were rumored to sign (Fleury? Lindros? BURE?!? GRETZKY????!?!?!?!?! *DROOOOOL*)...then my 10 year old brain could never understand what went wrong once the season began

 

[Edge]

My time with the organization coincided with all but one of the dark years.

Was the one real negative in what was otherwise a beneficial experience.

 

[NYR94]

Summers were like Christmas back then, hearing the trickled rumors through the grapevine in summer camp of who the Rangers were rumored to sign (Fleury? Lindros? BURE?!? GRETZKY????!?!?!?!?! *DROOOOOL*)...then my 10 year old brain could never understand what went wrong once the season began

It's a cycle Rangers fans are all too familiar with. I used to enjoy the summer part as a kid. Now I'm too old and cynical to get too hyped up these days with the big free agent signings. Fleury, Holik, Drury, Gomez, Gaborik, Richards, Shattenkirk. Every time the Rangers sign one we hear "it'll be different this time" yet it always leads to the same result--a lot of money spent, a lot of disappointment and eventual regret and no championship but now in the cap era with the added problem of dead cap space due to the inevitable buyouts.

I'll get excited when one of them lifts the Cup in a Rangers jersey.

My time with the organization coincided with all but one of the dark years.

Was the one real negative in what was otherwise a beneficial experience.

So it was your fault!

 

[JHS]

Sorry, but it is assinine to compare the Rangers to a Florida or Calgary. Market size matters. Ability to trade for specific players and attract other ones matter. Franchises are completely different.

Hmmmmm but I thought rebuilds were about developing young talent and not acquiring free agents??? At least that’s what many on here advocated when some people actually said the Rangers should not go after Panarin or Trouba because they wanted the team to be continually bad?( not meaning to say you said that because i cant remember if you did—but many said that.)

 

[JHS]

Everyone is aware that rebuilds aren't guaranteed. But they are successful far more often than indefinitely propping up a formerly competitive team whose window has closed.

Ok fair enough and likely true but why gut the team and leave the coach with nothing but playing kids in positions way over their head, without leadership or without a winning culture to develop in??? To me it’s analogous to having a flood in the basement of your house but deciding to demolish the entire house rather than fix the problem. After the run ended the Rangers just demolished the franchise without a clear path forward and are still just hoping and guessing. In fact hoping and guessing is the ONLY plan rebuilding teams can have because they have no idea if prospects will stick or not. They should have re-tooled just like the Yankees did but instead they blew it up.

 

[NYR]

Unfortunately for you, this is also not wise as Strome is playing the role of a 2nd line player and has completely changed his game around under Quinn's watch. And is now playing some of the best hockey of his career. So frankly, who cares where or how he came form? Todd Bertuzzi was also an outcast at one point. So too was Mike Knuble. And the Yankees took a chance on someone named Paul O'Neill.

Guy, let's just move on already.

You'll compare him to everyone under the sun just to try and make a point that's completely worthless.

If your answer to #2C on this team is Strome (currently #1C) then I don't have the time, energy nor patience to talk about what ifs/ fantasy BS with you.

Strome may be playing the best of "his" career but that isn't exactly saying much especially after you apply a little common sense and know damn well "his best" will never even remotely compete with the upper echelon 2nd line centers in a playoff atmosphere.

But you gnash gnash to your heart's desire

 

[redwhiteandblue]

The weird thing is that I’m not even sure anyone who objects to this approach has made the claim that Andersson has blown the doors off. It’s typically focused on how he compares to others who have been given longer leashes despite looking as bad, or worse at times.

I’ve found that the more that type of question is raised, the less conviction the pushback tends to have. I think for a lot of people, even on some subconscious level, there’s an element of, “You know what? I really can’t explain it or fully defend it. It is a little a weird.”

At the end of the day they might not have as big of a problem with it as others, but I get the sense that they see it too on some level.

Then there’s the people who just don’t like Andersson period and this whole thing is just right in their wheelhouse. I think they’re definitely the minority. A very vocal minority, and I suspect some of them have multiple accounts, but a minority nonetheless.

Yeah, I’d agree there are some pretty radical views each way on the subject. Like you said, no one is suggesting he’s been a lights out stud. He’s just definitely not been bad, has stood out amongst his peers but somehow Howden is out there unscathed from any criticism.

And it’s not even anti-Howden but it’s just very odd since there has been multiple opportunities where Howden has bad stretches to justify switching him and Lias. It’s just odd all the way around. At the end of the day though I’ve realized I’ve seen every coach ever have a whipping boy and hell maybe Lias is Quinn’s. ‍

 

[True Blue]

Hmmmmm but I thought rebuilds were about developing young talent and not acquiring free agents??? At least that’s what many on here advocated when some people actually said the Rangers should not go after Panarin or Trouba because they wanted the team to be continually bad?( not meaning to say you said that because i cant remember if you did—but many said that.)

You tried to compare the Rangers to small franchises that have been rebuilding for a long time. I informed you as to why the Rangers are not the same franchises and why I believe that they will not be in a perpetual rebuild.

 

[True Blue]

You'll compare him to everyone under the sun just to try and make a point that's completely worthless.

I compare him not in performance, but to illustrate how and when others have come into their own

If your answer to #2C on this team is Strome (currently #1C) then I don't have the time, energy nor patience to talk about what ifs/ fantasy BS with you.

1) he is playing as the top line center because ZBad is hurt, not for any other reason.

2) Please point out where I said that my choice for the second line center is Strome. You and I both know that you cannot. This is what you call a strawman argument. The definition, in case you do not know is this: An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Strome may be playing the best of "his" career but that isn't exactly saying much especially after you apply a little common sense and know damn well "his best" will never even remotely compete with the upper echelon 2nd line centers in a playoff atmosphere.

Yawn.....again, just where have we been discussing Strome as a long term answer at the second line? Stating that he is performing as a second line player (which he is) and can possibly be a second line player in actuality is not really the same as saying that I want him to be the second line center for the Rangers in the playoffs. A bit of reading fundamentals may go a long way here.

 

[NYR]

I compare him not in performance, but to illustrate how and when others have come into their own

1) he is playing as the top line center because ZBad is hurt, not for any other reason.

2) Please point out where I said that my choice for the second line center is Strome. You and I both know that you cannot. This is what you call a strawman argument. The definition, in case you do not know is this: An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Yawn.....again, just where have we been discussing Strome as a long term answer at the second line? Stating that he is performing as a second line player (which he is) and can possibly be a second line player in actuality is not really the same as saying that I want him to be the second line center for the Rangers in the playoffs. A bit of reading fundamentals may go a long way here.

1) You don't compare an NHL player in performance? K Lol
And what does that have to do with the price of beans in Mexico?

2) Durr x2 lol

3) The point is that cap problems shouldn't be an issue being that this is the youngest team in the league.
We shouldn't even be having this conversation if JG knew what he was doing in the first place, strawman.

4) you live in a world of fantasy where temporary/ fill'ins lead the way.

Rebuilding teams that aren't responsible enough to have cap space in order to even obtain/ RETAIN a #2C are starting things off behind the 8- ball let alone all the other holes that need to be filled in this line up.

2 steps forward, 3 behind but you keep turning a blind eye if that's what works for you..

You haven't given me one ounce of note-worthy info to make me want to put any effort into debating this with substance so I'm done talking about this since this should probably be in the JG thread at this point anyway..

 

[Shesterkybomb]

People bashing Quinn for Ansdersons usage should realize he hasnt been that good, he really hasnt earned anything. Without pointing at his linemates tell me an area he has been good at. I mean positionally he has been lacking, he hasnt put up any offense, hasnt really carried that line at all like he should and I'd argue that Quinn is giving him two vets to play with because he feels he isnt ready for more responsibility because he hasnt been better than mediocre. I'm no fan of Mckegg but he was actually better in that same role imo. Personally I feel he will be better at some point but that point isnt going to happen without some lessons on the way.