Speculation: Free Agent Frenzy Part II - Who is left?

[silverfish]

I mean you can look at it as the league is wrong about him, or the League is stupid about guys like him, and the fact that he signed for a pittance is a totally great opportunity that we should have taken; or you can look at it as when the vast majority of the league has little-to-no interest in a guy with his talent but character concerns, maybe he's not worth it at any cost. I'm obviously inclined to believe in the latter--I actually assumed he'd have received more interest and signed for more money, but I didn't really want to bring him here under any circumstance.

It doesn't surprise me that the league is glossing him over, but, I'd have liked the Rangers to take a chance on him. His underlying numbers are promising. He's still young. It made sense to me as a 'rebuilding' team.

One of those things that I understand, I just don't agree with.

Like, the way I'm seeing it is Columbus just got 40 point potential for basically league minimum because teams see off-ice issues with Duclair. IMO, these are the sorts of off-ice persona issues I would not ignore, but not let interfere with my decision making, to get a player with his underlying numbers at that price. If it doesn't work out, or the character issues become an objective hindrance on your team, you waive him, normal waivers or unconditional waivers.

Of course, there is a line. I would never ignore Voynov's off-ice issues to bring in a right-side D on this team. The line is subjective, and different for everyone. Some people wouldn't want Duclair here. That's fine.

Further edit, after BRF liked this post for full-disclosure: The thing that annoyed me most about the Duclair discussion which turned me into a troll about is that many posters were flat out ignoring the objective reasons people were putting forward for why the Rangers should take a shot at Duclair by simply saying: "You only want him because he played here". And that annoyed me.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I'd do it for their 1st in 2020

Conditional on his new team winning the cup of course

 

[Richard Banger]

Can we not open up the Captain Chicky Parm’s School for 4th liners who can’t hockey good and want to learn to do other stuff good too?

There are players who are good at hockey and have good character. Nobody wants bad players

 

[Ola]

What happened to the Karlsson talk? Erik Karlsson, the Ottawa RD?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

It doesn't surprise me that the league is glossing him over, but, I'd have liked the Rangers to take a chance on him. His underlying numbers are promising. He's still young. It made sense to me as a 'rebuilding' team.

One of those things that I understand, I just don't agree with.

Like, the way I'm seeing it is Columbus just got 40 point potential for basically league minimum because teams see off-ice issues with Duclair. IMO, these are the sorts of off-ice persona issues I would not ignore, but not let interfere with my decision making, to get a player with his underlying numbers at that price. If it doesn't work out, or the character issues become an objective hindrance on your team, you waive him, normal waivers or unconditional waivers.

Of course, there is a line. I would never ignore Voynov's off-ice issues to bring in a right-side D on this team. The line is subjective, and different for everyone. Some people wouldn't want Duclair here. That's fine.

This is a much better, very fair take, IMO.

(Of course, for all we know the Rangers actually offered the same – or a better – deal and Duclair declined it because he's bitter about how things ended. One of those things we can't know.)

 

[Off Sides]

Kings, Hawks won Cups with some non ideal people, Boston got one too,

I get that it's not something a team should be trying to fill up on, to me it depends on the severity of the egregiousness, but I also feel like a team who ignores anything that could become even somewhat difficult to deal with is ignoring a good percentage of the available overall talent pool.

 

[silverfish]

This is going to sound more aggressive than I intend it to be, but I assure that isn't my intention. I am generally curious.

Is there anyone who is okay with DeAngelo on this roster but would not have been okay with Duclair on this roster? If yes, why?

 

[LamoTheKid]

I'd rather have Duclair over Deangelo. Full stop.

 

[Ghost of jas]

This is going to sound more aggressive than I intend it to be, but I assure that isn't my intention. I am generally curious.

Is there anyone who is okay with DeAngelo on this roster but would not have been okay with Duclair on this roster? If yes, why?

The questions about DeAngelo are that he’s a hothead; the questions about Duclair are about effort.

 

[JimmyG89]

The questions about DeAngelo are that he’s a hothead; the questions about Duclair are about effort.

Actually the questions about both have been off the ice as much as on the ice.

To answer the question, I'd like to think the answer is nobody should object to both being on the team, but I'm almost positive that someone will take exception to Duclair and not ADA.

 

[Gardner McKay]

This is going to sound more aggressive than I intend it to be, but I assure that isn't my intention. I am generally curious.

Is there anyone who is okay with DeAngelo on this roster but would not have been okay with Duclair on this roster? If yes, why?

I don't think anyone would have been "not okay" with Duclair.

Those of us who didn't think he would be a good fit/that we weren't going to be interested were going off of what has been reported and the fact that our current management team is placing a clear emphasis on character & being coachable.

It turns out, the Rangers were in on Duclair. He chose not to come back. Would I have been upset at him signing? Of course not. I want to see the kid succeed and if he does, I want it to be here because at the moment, we are a bit devoid of talent up front.

 

[haveandare]

I'm not implying posters are being racist. I'm implying GMs are racist.

Or way more likely that he's just not that great a player and/or management as an idea how the restore will shake out and there's no spot for him.

I guess in any group of 31 people you're likely to have some people with ugly prejudices but I don't think there's much to support the idea that GMs as a whole are racist.

 

[Gardner McKay]

I'm not implying posters are being racist. I'm implying GMs are racist.

And that is not a discussion we are having.

 

[Richard Banger]

I would of liked having a potential 45 Pt player. I loved Duke when we was up with the big club and was sad when he was traded. But i'm not okay with his lack of development.

 

[silverfish]

The questions about DeAngelo are that he’s a hothead; the questions about Duclair are about effort.

Fair, but something I weigh less than others if results are still there. Thank you for the answer.

I don't think anyone would have been "not okay" with Duclair.

Those of us who didn't think he would be a good fit/that we weren't going to be interested were going off of what has been reported and the fact that our current management team is placing a clear emphasis on character & being coachable.

It turns out, the Rangers were in on Duclair. He chose not to come back. Would I have been upset at him signing? Of course not. I want to see the kid succeed and if he does, I want it to be here because at the moment, we are a bit devoid of talent up front.

Character and being coachable are or were question marks for ADA, though. The kid has a history that's as wide as Duclair's and also has the "quantity of teams vs age" debate working against him.

Appreciate the answer.

 

[LamoTheKid]

I'm still mad about the Yandle trade.

 

[silverfish]

I'm still mad about the Yandle trade.

I'm still mad our defense isn't:

McDonagh - Stralman
Yandle - Shattenkirk
Skjei - Nakladal

 

[Richard Banger]

@silverfish

Neither has developed to the player people expect them to be. But I'd rather have one potential head ache then 2.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I'm still mad our defense isn't:

McDonagh - Stralman
Yandle - Shattenkirk
Skjei - Nakladal

That’s the one that really gets in your craw.

 

[LamoTheKid]

At this point I'm conviced people only value TonyD because he was one of the pieces that came back for Stepan. IMO we've seen exactly what he is. I think Duke hasn't hit his peak and has bounced around a little too much. I hope he finds success in CLB.

 

[silverfish]

That’s the one that really gets in your craw.

 

[Doctyl]

@silverfish

Neither has developed to the player people expect them to be. But I'd rather have one potential head ache then 2.

I’d rather have good hockey players

 

[Off Sides]

I think it does lead to an interesting question, why trade for ADA, or did this character/coachability mandate come after that?

 

[Edge]

At this point I'm conviced people only value TonyD because he was one of the pieces that came back for Stepan. IMO we've seen exactly what he is. I think Duke hasn't hit his peak and has bounced around a little too much. I hope he finds success in CLB.

I think there's an element of the unknown with ADA.

The numbers in the OHL, the numbers in the AHL. The question is whether the kid can put it all together.

Not sure people feel we've really given him a good, earnest look.

I think there are a number of guys, both veterans and younger players, that we want to see under a new coach, in a new system, and with nothing to lose.

ADA has his work cut out for him, but I think people want to see him in a different setting before cutting bait.

 

[Leetch3]

I think it does lead to an interesting question, why trade for ADA, or did this character/coachability mandate come after that?

the character issue is the reason he was traded (twice). he wouldn't have been available otherwise...trade was made on the hope that a reputation he earned as an 18 year old might not be an issue at 21-22 and put in the right environment you could get him straightened out.