Toggle sidebar

Rumor: Rangers Interested in Ryan Reaves

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tawnos said:
“Character” is a blanket term, but it’s nowhere near sufficient. If you’re bringing in character guys, you want them to have a personality that works for your room. Perhaps Kunitz doesn’t strike Gorton as the right fit for the room he’s got. It’s never as simple as “let’s go get a character guy.” There’s more to group dynamics than that.
Click to expand...
So if you're evaluating these guys... like, what do you think Gorton sees in Reaves that he doesn't see in Kunitz besides the fact that Shattenkirk and Reaves are bff? And why does that outweigh what these guys bring on the ice?
 
Buch-Nieves-Reeves is going to be a awesome sight to see. Maybe they can sign Bieksa to play RD. They can out character the other teams every game.
 
Reaves sucks. The Brashear/Boogard days are over. Go after Duclair and Yalkupov. They have talent. Hopefully the new superstar coach who is God’s gift in developing talent can take these lumps of clay and turn them into works of art
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides
silverfish said:
So if you're evaluating these guys... like, what do you think Gorton sees in Reaves that he doesn't see in Kunitz besides the fact that Shattenkirk and Reaves are bff? And why does that outweigh what these guys bring on the ice?
Click to expand...

I don’t know these people. Maybe Reaves expresses a greater willingness to work with young kids. Maybe something in Kunitz’s attitude struck Gorton wrong. I have no real idea though, because I have nowhere near enough information having never interacted with those people.

I will say that team results are not simply a sum of what players bring on the ice. Well, I should rephrase. Team results are a sum of what players bring on the ice, but what those players bring on the ice is affected by what happens off the ice. So the evaluation of players who are being specifically brought in for their presence off the ice becomes something completely different. The extent to which that outweighs the on-ice performance depends on the particular GM and the specific role they’re looking to fill.

If the purpose of this is to improve the team’s performance in the long run by making the youngsters better professionals, then you might necessarily sacrifice some of the on-ice effect in the immediate future.
 
I think this a methodical -- and right -- approach to rebuilding the team. Off-ice chemistry and learning/maturing are big parts of on-ice success. These are youngsters and not full-grown adults yet. The team wants to groom them to become men. There are 16 other hours in a day when they have to exist and get along in the real world. I'm glad that the FO is giving it the proper weight factor in FA evaluation. No more blindly signing the big name on the market without doing due diligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Tawnos said:
I don’t know these people. Maybe Reaves expresses a greater willingness to work with young kids. Maybe something in Kunitz’s attitude struck Gorton wrong. I have no real idea though, because I have nowhere near enough information having never interacted with those people.

I will say that team results are not simply a sum of what players bring on the ice. Well, I should rephrase. Team results are a sum of what players bring on the ice, but what those players bring on the ice is affected by what happens off the ice. So the evaluation of players who are being specifically brought in for their presence off the ice becomes something completely different. The extent to which that outweighs the on-ice performance depends on the particular GM and the specific role they’re looking to fill.

If the purpose of this is to improve the team’s performance in the long run by making the youngsters better professionals, then you might necessarily sacrifice some of the on-ice effect in the immediate future.
Click to expand...
Yeah, could be. Just seems like we're sacrificing objectivity for the sake of subjectivity. I'm not a fan of that, but I understand.
 
free0717 said:
Reaves sucks. The Brashear/Boogard days are over. Go after Duclair and Yalkupov. They have talent. Hopefully the new superstar coach who is God’s gift in developing talent can take these lumps of clay and turn them into works of art
Click to expand...

Yakupov. Nail Yakupov? The defensive liability, effortless, 16 points in 2017 - 2018 Nail Yakupov? The Nail Yakupov that has 25 points in his last 100 games?

Now, I get that Ryan Reaves isn't the most talented player in the world but yet you're asking for Nail Yakupov?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trxjw and Paulie Walnutz
silverfish said:
If Kunitz is toast then what is Reaves or Komarov?
Click to expand...
Super toast? I'm not sure what you're getting at. All three are not good (Reaves was never good and Kunitz is past his prime). Komarov, while on the downswing is easily the best option of the three provided its a decent deal. He brings a the pest element this team sorely lacks. Not to be confused with toffness.
 
Why are people getting upset? Reaves is physical and can play. 1 or 2 year deal and trade him to a contender down the track.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Super toast? I'm not sure what you're getting at. All three are not good (Reaves was never good and Kunitz is past his prime). Komarov, while on the downswing is easily the best option of the three provided its a decent deal. He brings a the pest element this team sorely lacks. Not to be confused with toffness.
Click to expand...
Oh my bad I think I misread your point.

Carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gardner McKay
silverfish said:
Yeah, could be. Just seems like we're sacrificing objectivity for the sake of subjectivity. I'm not a fan of that, but I understand.
Click to expand...

There is a large amount of being a manager, in this case a GM, that is subjective when it comes to staffing. At least in my experience having been a manager for many years in a performance environment.

Its funny you talking about not being a fan of the approach, but you understand. That’s my entire aim as a fan. To understand the decisions are made. Most of the time, I don’t really have an opinion on whether it’s good or bad.
 
Tawnos said:
There is a large amount of being a manager, in this case a GM, that is subjective when it comes to staffing. At least in my experience having been a manager for many years in a performance environment.

Its funny you talking about not being a fan of the approach, but you understand. That’s my entire aim as a fan. To understand the decisions are made. Most of the time, I don’t really have an opinion on whether it’s good or bad.
Click to expand...
Just because I understand something doesn't mean I like it :)

I understand that I can't go back in time, but I'm still mad about it.
 
They should go overpay Kyle Brodziak or Derek Ryan on a two year deal or something to that effect, players who could take a regular shift and even maybe help the kids progress on the ice as well as be vet shelter/mentor guys
 
eco's bones said:
I worry about the term more than the $'s. The Rangers have tons of cap space--even after Hayes, Skjei etc. They very easily have the money to afford a Tavares if Tavares was interested which apparently he's not. Ideally you don't give any of these guys more than 2 years. Move them at the deadline for other assets if you feel it necessary. I would think there would be a market for Reaves as he moved to Vegas late last year. Any team looking to bulk up and add toughness at the deadline should be interested in him.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure Reaves will have to settle for a one year deal.
 
silverfish said:
Just because I understand something doesn't mean I like it :)

I understand that I can't go back in time, but I'm still mad about it.
Click to expand...

Just a random thing I think about sometimes. Time travel would also require traveling through space, because we are constantly moving. Makes it even more complex.
 
Tawnos said:
Just a random thing I think about sometimes. Time travel would also require traveling through space, because we are constantly moving. Makes it even more complex.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this recently, as well. I wouldn't want the ability to travel forward in time in fear of missing too much of my own life. But traveling back in time and getting a redo? Oh yeah. I'd put my ass on the ice every day and then come to HFNYR to watch you guys complain about my level of character or my CF% when I was on the Rangers :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos
If the Rangers did not do silly things they would have no reason to want to go back in time and undo them, it's called foresight. I'd even be happy with them not repeating the same mistakes over and over again. May as well just copy and paste the several Glass, Brashear, Asham threads we have had over the illustrious years they spent with the Rangers.
 
Off Sides said:
If the Rangers did not do silly things they would have no reason to want to go back in time and undo them, it's called foresight. I'd even be happy with them not repeating the same mistakes over and over again. May as well just copy and paste the several Glass, Brashear, Asham threads we have had over the illustrious years they spent with the Rangers.
Click to expand...

The purpose of these rumored signings is totally different than any of the players you mentioned.
 
Tawnos said:
The purpose of these rumored signings is totally different than any of the players you mentioned.
Click to expand...

A 4th line tough guy who supposedly has character is different than the others?

Are you saying Boogard, Brashear, Asham, Glass had low character or were not tough?
 
Wait a sec why is Kunitz toast exactly? He just put up 13 goals 29 points that’s pretty good if he’s a 4th liner. He did that in 11:57 a game which is like 5 min less than any Pittsburgh season and got almost no pp time. That 29 points this year is more than Reaves has combined since 2015.

I feel like people have an aversion to players who used to be good and now aren’t what they were. Reaves is a character guy who provides toughness and leadership who has always been bad at hockey and still is. Kunitz is a former top line scorer who is older and obviously not what he used to be but because of the drastic difference in what he was vs what he is he is “done”

Basically the difference between Kunitz_Now and Kunitz_Then is >>>>>> than that of Reaves_Now and Reaves_Then so he seems relatively worse to what you expect.

I would not sign Reaves for 1 year for the league minimum. Reaves does one thing for this team - make them worse - so I guess if you’re hoping to tank, be the worst team, and luckbox the draft lottery you should want him then.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides and silverfish
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom