Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: NYR acquire Adam McQuaid from Bruins for Kampfer, and 4th round pick

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
even if it’s just a Sandpaper vet addition on the back end I wonder what they think about the guys already on the right side maybe they just aren’t happy with how it looks
 
Trxjw said:
There's nothing wrong with Pionk being the #1RD in Hartford and being recalled at the trade deadline again. I've been pumping the kid's tires since before we signed him and I freely admit he has plenty of areas to improve upon.

You don't rebuild a team by forcing kids to play over their head due to a lack of options.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what Edmonton did for years, you're absolutely correct. We don't need that
 
  • Like
Reactions: FoxysExpensiveNYDigs
Thank God. This trade does so many things. One, it ensures DeAngelo who sucks won't make the team and most likely will be dealt. Two, somebody will actually stand up for our players as he's a legit tough guy. Three, we don't have to put a scrub on the 4th line now who will ruin any offense they might provide. Four, he can actually clear the crease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband, GodlyRangers and Strafer
Off Sides said:
Do you think those three are competing for two spots?

They did not make this trade to waive or continually scratch McQuaid.

He is likely the default 3rd pair RD.
Click to expand...
I believe that if they outplay him, they will play. But McQuaid will be a factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafer
silverfish said:
I think the FO and coaching staff are on the same page with how they view the team and the personnel. I don't think Quinn gets hired if that's not the case. I don't think the FO views McQuaid as a third pairing or 7th d-man. There are plenty of other more efficient ways to acquire these types of players that isn't targeting them in a trade and spending draft picks, inconsequential draft picks for sure, but draft picks nonetheless, in a rebuilding year.

I think the organization as a whole continues to place value in players like McQuaid. We see it every time. When we claimed McLeod last year, everyone was in the thread saying who cares, he's never going to play, and McLeod saw more > 10 TOI games here in 23 games than he did in the last two seasons combined before he came here. AND, the team went and re-signed him.

So, excuse my hesitation to believe this team thinks McQuaid is a third-pairing guy. I'm allowed to have that viewpoint, and I'll be more than happy to be wrong if he's not among the D leaders in toi/gp come October.

Is that sufficient enough for you? Thank you for reminding me why posting here is terrible.
Click to expand...

A lot of that is fair and I understand where you're coming from. But I still don't see a reasonable justification for "I don't think the FO views McQuaid as a 3rd pairing or 7th d-man," considering he's been a 3rd pairing D his entire career. You're allowed to have that viewpoint, but I'd like to hear a reason why you think what you do that isn't based on what kind of ice-time AV doled out.

I'm not someone who said McLeod would never play. All I did in those threads was lay out where the FO is coming from when they bring in players like that, but McQuaid isn't the same kind of player as McLeod anyway.
 
Tawnos said:
A lot of that is fair and I understand where you're coming from. But I still don't see a reasonable justification for "I don't think the FO views McQuaid as a 3rd pairing or 7th d-man," considering he's been a 3rd pairing D his entire career. You're allowed to have that viewpoint, but I'd like to hear a reason why you think what you do that isn't based on what kind of ice-time AV doled out.

I'm not someone who said McLeod would never play. All I did in those threads was lay out where the FO is coming from when they bring in players like that, but McQuaid isn't the same kind of player as McLeod anyway.
Click to expand...
Because the FO regularly values this type of player. I'm sorry this isn't a sufficient answer for you.

Again, I'll caveat saying that I hope I'm wrong and you're right. That McQuaid is a third-pairing guy or in the pressbox. I really hope that.
 
If this adds some toughness to help shelter our kids during a developmental year that's fine. This is a minor move, no reason for anyone to be up in arms.
 
broadwayblue said:
If this adds some toughness to help shelter our kids during a developmental year that's fine. This is a minor move, no reason for anyone to be up in arms.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. He's 31. He's not terribly old or anything, and he plays a role.

Shatty, Pionk, ADA is not a strong right side. McQuaid is going to force some honesty out of the opposition, and if he clears the crease, that's a big plus. Responsible in the d-zone. Just little to no offense.

If he's a more vocal type of leader, even better.
 
silverfish said:
Because the FO regularly values this type of player. I'm sorry this isn't a sufficient answer for you.

Again, I'll caveat saying that I hope I'm wrong and you're right. That McQuaid is a third-pairing guy or in the pressbox. I really hope that.
Click to expand...

It's not a sufficient answer because it isn't reasonable. You're conflating style with quality to form that opinion. If they brought in Shea Weber, for example, I would agree that it's because they want him playing 1st pair. He and McQuaid are similar styles of player, but not similar quality. Will we see McQuaid occasionally used higher up the lineup due to injuries or poor play from players above him on the depth chart? I'm sure, because that literally happens on every team in the league... and probably on every team in every professional hockey league in the world. But, when the team is healthy and everyone is performing well, he will either be on the 3rd pair or in the pressbox.
 
Definitely an upgrade from Kampfer obviously, but think this will be good for the Rangers. I am happy with the trade.
 
Tawnos said:
It's not a sufficient answer because it isn't reasonable. You're conflating style with quality to form that opinion. If they brought in Shea Weber, for example, I would agree that it's because they want him playing 1st pair. He and McQuaid are similar styles of player, but not similar quality. Will we see McQuaid occasionally used higher up the lineup due to injuries or poor play from players above him on the depth chart? I'm sure, because that literally happens on every team in the league... and probably on every team in every professional hockey league in the world. But, when the team is healthy and everyone is performing well, he will either be on the 3rd pair or in the pressbox.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm sorry that my answer for what is fueling my opinions and hesitations doesn't meet your needs. I guess I have to flee now.
 
silverfish said:
Because the FO regularly values this type of player. I'm sorry this isn't a sufficient answer for you.

Again, I'll caveat saying that I hope I'm wrong and you're right. That McQuaid is a third-pairing guy or in the pressbox. I really hope that.
Click to expand...

Here is what I don't get - why does McQuaid potentially (as in having a small chance) of being on the top pairing bother you?

Is it because you believe that the young kids should be given those spots even if they aren't ready?
Is it because you believe that if McQuaid is on the top pairing that we are going to suck (which kind of is the goal this season)?
Is it because you believe Smith (who was borderline AHL worthy last season) or Shattenkirk (rehabbing a major knee injury) should be on the top pairing?
Or, is it because you believe that McQuaid will get those minutes over a youngster who has shown to be ready, despite the fact that Gorton has publicly stated that the team will not do that?

Why does valuing this type of player, while sucking, matter? It could be years before we no longer suck. Worrying about the team making these same moves 2 - infinite years from now seems quite ridiculous.
 
McQuaid is also in a contract year. Not to say he wasn't motivated before, but he is going to be doubly so this season.

I could really see Pionk starting the season in the AHL (to many people's bitching).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTakedown
Gardner McKay said:
Here is what I don't get - why does McQuaid potentially (as in having a small chance) of being on the top pairing bother you?

Is it because you believe that the young kids should be given those spots even if they aren't ready?
Is it because you believe that if McQuaid is on the top pairing that we are going to suck (which kind of is the goal this season)?
Is it because you believe Smith (who was borderline AHL worthy last season) or Shattenkirk (rehabbing a major knee injury) should be on the top pairing?
Or, is it because you believe that McQuaid will get those minutes over a youngster who has shown to be ready, despite the fact that Gorton has publicly stated that the team will not do that?

Why does valuing this type of player, while sucking, matter? It could be years before we no longer suck. Worrying about the team making these same moves 2 - infinite years from now seems quite ridiculous.
Click to expand...

1. If the kids aren't better than McQuaid, they'll never be ready.
2. Do you really think the FO traded for McQuaid because they think he'll make the team worse?
3. They'd both be better options than McQuaid, without question
4. I think it's entirely possible, but I'm not a prophet

5. Because before we were "trying to suck", the FO valued these players. While we are "trying to suck", the FO is valuing these players. What happens when we are no longer "trying to suck"?
 
I agree Rangers management values these types of players.

I disagree with their valuation as I perceive it, but not completely.

When they were good they should have seen far less value in these players, the focus should have been on being more skilled to keep up with the teams who were more skilled.

Now that they are not as good I think they should see more value in these types of players but not to the point they are sacrificing on the cusp of the NHL developmental ice time to them. Which is where my consternation comes into play.
 
SA16 said:
Why would teams trade a third for McQuaid at the deadline when they could have just traded a 4th for him now?
Click to expand...

1) cap space
2) teams will know they are close to competing or making the playoffs and will be looking to add
3) injuries occur
4) teams may feel the need to add experience and some toughness going into the playoffs

I am sure there are others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
SA16 said:
Why would teams trade a third for McQuaid at the deadline when they could have just traded a 4th for him now? Contract shouldn't be an issue they could retain someone/ship one big like the Rangers did with Kampfer. Also he's terrible.
Click to expand...

Because teams at the deadline are desperate and teams now are not?

Why did the Bruins give us a 3rd + O'Gara for Holden when we only paid a 4th?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
The rental market for D isn’t very good this February. Not counting Karlsson. He will be the most expensive rental in NHL history assuming he has not been moved before February and/or signed an extension. Many of the teams are playoff teams with expiring D so they won’t be selling. McQuaid could be the top D rental. Gorton needs to find a stupid GM to give 2 seconds for his rental like Toronto did with Polak. The Leafs included Spalling and took on Torres but they got 2 seconds.

Browse - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inferno and Gardner McKay
silverfish said:
1. If the kids aren't better than McQuaid, they'll never be ready.
2. Do you really think the FO traded for McQuaid because they think he'll make the team worse?
3. They'd both be better options than McQuaid, without question
4. I think it's entirely possible, but I'm not a prophet

5. Because before we were "trying to suck", the FO valued these players. While we are "trying to suck", the FO is valuing these players. What happens when we are no longer "trying to suck"?
Click to expand...

Being better than McQuaid and being ready to play top pairing minutes are two completely different things. McQuaid is what he is. Our young guys are not. They are unfinished. They need to be groomed. Forcing players to play in over their head is a great way to ensure we are a team like Edmonton.

I think they traded for McQuaid because he is better than Kampfer, could be a better mentor than Kampfer and he is good fit for where this team is at this exact moment in time.

On your last point, Zibanejad wasn't exactly known as a character guy when we traded a skilled character guy for him. To many people, DeAngelo's character is highly questionable. They value skill, character and effort, not every nice guy who exists in the NHL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom