Confirmed with Link: Rangers sign D Jack Johnson to one-year deal

[NYSPORTS]

If the Rangers are implementing a new defensive system, then a cheap vet may help this young group of 2nd and rookie players with an ADA potentially switching sides.

i don’t like it either but that might be the play. And the money, com’on, it’s nothing. He didn’t sign for 3 years and $6 million. It’s one year at $1.5.

 

[NYSPORTS]

no fan of the guy yet if the Rangers change their defense and he helps the kids recognize how to execute the defense, does that equate in these percentages? There has to be another angle here.

The Rangers are filling in cheap back end depth. Look at these signings.

 

[Fireonk]

I know it's not over yet, but if you were to tell me the worst signing the Rangers make this free agency is a garbage defenseman for 1 year, 1.15 million I would have been thrilled.

I understand people not wanting him on this team, myself as well, but holy cow the overreactions. 1 year. The worst outcome is that he actually plays well and the Rangers want to re-sign him haha.

 

[kovazub94]

Not reading 8 pages of crying and moaning on Saturday morning.

I think the organization wants to give Miller and Reunanen every chance to take a roster spot by winning it over an NHL vet. That’s my silver lining and something that I can make a sense of.

 

[Tawnos]

Not reading 8 pages of crying and moaning on Saturday morning.

I think the organization wants to give Miller and Reunanen every chance to take a roster spot by winning it over an NHL vet. That’s my silver lining and something that I can make a sense of.

Someone to compete with who is easier to overcome than someone who was with the team for 13 years. That thought had occurred to me too. Ditto on the Bitetto signing.

 

[TominNC]

I'm hoping he's going to be Martin's guy at camp and at Hartford teaching the up and coming guys his system. Maybe he moves into a coaching role in the future. Hey, anything to keep him off the Garden ice

 

[Raspewtin]

Not reading 8 pages of crying and moaning on Saturday morning.

I think the organization wants to give Miller and Reunanen every chance to take a roster spot by winning it over an NHL vet. That’s my silver lining and something that I can make a sense of.

and we needed the worst defenseman in the NHL for that? it couldn't be a competent vet?

 

[Rangers in 7]

and we needed the worst defenseman in the NHL for that? it couldn't be a competent vet?

No

 

[broadwayblue]

and we needed the worst defenseman in the NHL for that? it couldn't be a competent vet?

This guy is far from great, but who else were we going to get on a 1 year deal for 1M? He's a veteran placeholder who is here for a short stint in a limited role. Could be a blessing in disguise as the bar is set fairly low for our young guys to beat him out for a spot in camp.

 

[Tawnos]

and we needed the worst defenseman in the NHL for that? it couldn't be a competent vet?

Well, technically no. The more competent the player, the narrower the window for the young guy to find.

 

[Raspewtin]

This guy is far from great, but who else were we going to get on a 1 year deal for 1M? He's a veteran placeholder who is here for a short stint in a limited role.

you could pony up the extra .5 million for someone better? what bottom pair D is out here commanding difficult money?

cause you know if whatever D is “competing” with JJ fails, we have to watch him every night. at least hedge our bets with someone who won’t be the worst player on the ice every night

 

[Raspewtin]

Well, technically no. The more competent the player, the narrower the window for the young guy to find.

well we should be prepared for the young guy to not be ready as much as we are giving the young guy a fair chance.

 

[broadwayblue]

you could pony up the extra .5 million for someone better? what bottom pair D is out here commanding difficult money?

cause you know if whatever D is “competing” with JJ fails, we have to watch him every night. at least hedge our bets with someone who won’t be the worst player on the ice every night

Who would you have suggested?

 

[Tawnos]

well we should be prepared for the young guy to not be ready as much as we are giving the young guy a fair chance.

Maybe, but the on-ice quality of the player takes a back seat to the quality of the person when you’re bringing someone in for this purpose.

 

[Inferno]

Here's my thoughts....

I hate the signing...I HATE IT

however I think there is a justifiable rationalization.

1)the rangers do not want to just hand a spot to a kid.
2)the rangers want a lhd who is good in the locker room and good with kids and familiar with the system.
3)the rangers want to just sign then for 1 year because they anticipate a kid will be ready by next year and I'd not they'll sign another doeth defenseman.
4)the rangers have a very low 1 year number in mind.

So in that situation jack johnson fit those metrics
The actual ability of the player was kind of tertiary to the stuff listed above.

I don't agree with it...but it kinda sorta makes sense.....I guess.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Pretty amazing takes in the main board about this signing. Almost as if everyone believes the Rangers are contenders and Johnson will only slow things down.
Folks need to step away from the ledge and relax over a 1 year/1m cheap band aid of a contract. This next season is about gauging how the younger players are developing. People thinking Johnson will take time away from a prospect like Miller making his way into the lineup are out to lunch. We won’t remember Jack Jonson this time next year. Stick to the plan... defense will take at least another season to get going.

So why bother moving Staal out. Could have just let him finish his contract out.

 

[Raspewtin]

Who would you have suggested?

Pouliot, Kulikov, Pysyk, Forbort, Hutton, Mueller, Gustafsson, and Koekkoek and that's including only the available ones now.

Maybe, but the on-ice quality of the player takes a back seat to the quality of the person when you’re bringing someone in for this purpose.

So we knowingly signed a bad player who's a good person. Really the crux of the issue.

 

[Inferno]

Pouliot, Kulikov, Pysyk, Forbort, Hutton, Mueller, Gustafsson, and Koekkoek and that's including only the available ones now.


So we knowingly signed a bad player who's a good person. Really the crux of the issue.

I'm honestly not sure the actual talent was a consideration. I think it's more about the stuff I listed above

Again. I abhor the signing ..but I think I understand what they were thinking even though I vehemently disagree.

 

[Raspewtin]

I'm honestly not sure the actual talent was a consideration. I think it's more about the stuff I listed above

Again. I abhor the signing ..but I think I understand what they were thinking even though I vehemently disagree.

If we just wanted some meatbag dipshit around for stuff and things I would've just kept Staal.

 

[xsniper11x]

Posted this in the FA thread, but makes more sense here:

Yesterday, Brian Lawton (who’s a former agent) was talking about how relationships with a player makes a bigger difference for those in the organization than many fans realize. That sometimes teams sign a player that leaves fans really scratching their heads, and there’s not much more to it than the relationship. He said it happens often and fans have to realize it is what it is.

A few hours later, JJ signs with us. Jack was w/ JD in CLB, Martin in PIT and his story is very public. These are still people, and while a million different analytics will say it wasn’t the best move, there is an intangible factor here. We don’t have to like it, but at the end of the day, as much as we want everyone in the org to be talent evaluating robots devoid of all human emotion, it’s just not the case. And maybe there are certain intangible benefits that come with that.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

If we just wanted some meatbag dipshit around for stuff and things I would've just kept Staal.

Staal: 5.7M
JMFJ: 1.15M

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Here's my thoughts....

I hate the signing...I HATE IT

however I think there is a justifiable rationalization.

1)the rangers do not want to just hand a spot to a kid.
2)the rangers want a lhd who is good in the locker room and good with kids and familiar with the system.
3)the rangers want to just sign then for 1 year because they anticipate a kid will be ready by next year and I'd not they'll sign another doeth defenseman.
4)the rangers have a very low 1 year number in mind.

So in that situation jack johnson fit those metrics
The actual ability of the player was kind of tertiary to the stuff listed above.

I don't agree with it...but it kinda sorta makes sense.....I guess.

For all the reasons you spelled out, it doesn't sort of make sense — it makes sense.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

The crux of the issue is he might fit the bill for all those things but he's arguably the worst defenseman in the league and going to be playing regular minutes which actively makes the team worse

 

[Tawnos]

If we just wanted some meatbag dipshit around for stuff and things I would've just kept Staal.

Two things about that. First of all, if you want "some meatbag dipshit" for that, why the f*** would you want to pay that player $5.7m and not $1.15m? Unless, you are also "some meatbag dipshit." Then I could understand you being okay with it, because you'd be an idiot. I can forgive an idiot.

The second thing is that Jack Johnson doesn't come in with existing status, both with the coach and with the organization as a whole. If the reasoning behind why they signed Johnson is what we suspect, then he's a much better option than Staal for this reason alone.

 

[Disgraced Cosmonaut]

The overreactions are ridiculous. This guy isn’t seeing 10 minutes a night. Granted, in light of some other moves this is odd and I truly think that there are some defensive D AHLers under 30 that’d relish this opportunity more, but there you go. 1 year.