Confirmed with Link: Rangers Sign Micheal Haley (1 Year, Two-Way, $700K/$275K)

[eco's bones]

He's on the roster by the way--wearing #18---yup, Marc Staal's #. Expect that to change.

 

[Barnaby]

Of course. He wasn't worse than DD.

Brashear was a disaster. Any argument you had just went right out the window. Brashear made Sandy McCarthy look like Cam Neely.

 

[Edge]

Found himself out of the league? 486 NHL games says otherwise. Guy got paid handsomely too by Montreal. He maxed out every pint of pro capacity he had. Bad example.

Not sure Montreal got quite what they envisioned out of that deal.

Had the ankle injury, but not a guy I expected to be gone quite so soon. Out of the league essentially three years after leaving us, NHL career over at 30/31.

A guy I probably would’ve expectedly to be in the league a bit longer, based on the level he hit from 2010-2013.

 

[egelband]

I still think Tony would put up a great fight against him and who knows, Tony's quick and can def take a punch.

I honestly think Tony couldn't really reach Wilson's face with much authority. The dude is very tall and has great reach. Tony would probably be able to box him a bit but it would be a real height/reach advantage for Wilson. Which is Wilson's favorite thing. Aside from fringe NHLers looking in the other direction.

 

[egelband]

The problem with the Rangers is that instead of signing NHLers who can throw a punch, they sign AHLers who are willing to take punches to play in the NHL.

What do you expect for 700k?

 

[egelband]

Carcillo>>>Dorsett in 2014 playoffs and in general. When he got there around New Year's is when the team took off. Coincidence? Maybe but he scored 3 really important goals (Stadium Series, the middle finger in Philly, and Game 7 at MSG vs. Philly) . If he plays in the SCF and not Dorsett maybe it makes a difference.

Back to Haley, it's fine if he comes in once every 6-7 games to bang some bodies, protect, and forecheck. Eventually hell be dealt or sent down. I'd rather him and Smith talk philosophy, finance, politics, in $1000 suits on most nights than Lindgren/Chytil/Kravstov and even Timmy Gets.

On the whole I much preferred Dorsett. But yeah, Carcillo was on fire in that playoff. I bet he'd agree it was the best he played in his career.

 

[DutchNYR]

Here's one hoping we can get a 7th for him at the trade deadline. Soon that entire round will be ours!

 

[SML2]

Brashear was a disaster. Any argument you had just went right out the window. Brashear made Sandy McCarthy look like Cam Neely.

I couldn't care less how you look at it. Im saying that in the role of enforcing, or shifting momentum to your team, DD was the worst. Always willing to go. Never able to win. Almost every time he dropped the gloves it was a decisive, one sided victory for whoever he fought, and it was like letting all the air out of a balloon immediately after. Brashear may have been a shell of himself by the time he played in NY, but he didn't do what DD did. DD may have been a more capable player, but they should have sewed his gloves to the end of his sweater.

 

[JohnC]

I watched every game the guy played for us and he was not effective in that role. Furthermore, I find your definition of "good" to be questionable.

If you didn’t think he was effective as a tough, energy bringing grinder that made a very good combo with Boyle and Moore then you didn’t watch a lick and I can’t help you.

I personally do not cure about his effectiveness as a fighter because it had nothing to do with his effectiveness as an actual hockey player that year.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Didn't we sign McKegg to do this?

I'd rather just have Smith pull double duty and bring more to the table.

waste of a roster spot.

 

[nyr2k2]

Didn't we sign McKegg to do this?

I'd rather just have Smith pull double duty and bring more to the table.

waste of a roster spot.

McKegg isn't really a fighter. As far as I can find, he has fought seven times since 2010 at all levels of competition.

 

[SML2]

If you didn’t think he was effective as a tough, energy bringing grinder that made a very good combo with Boyle and Moore then you didn’t watch a lick and I can’t help you.

I personally do not cure about his effectiveness as a fighter because it had nothing to do with his effectiveness as an actual hockey player that year.

I'm going to be fine without your help.
I don't agree with you, but there is more worth looking forward to than to look back at. Enjoy the season.

 

[True Blue]

waste of a roster spot.

The signing was not about being a deterrent. There is no such thing. It was about bringing the fight to the other team and about someone being a protector when the kids are challenged by grown men.

Players like this in the line up can cause a change of attitude and have the other players play with more gumption.

 

[nyr2k2]

The signing was not about being a deterrent. There is no such thing. It was about bringing the fight to the other team and about someone being a protector when the kids are challenged by grown men.

Players like this in the line up can cause a change of attitude and have the other players play with more gumption.

I understand the "attitude" element which I won't get into other than to say there's never been anything quantifiable to show teams actually perform better when they have guys like this helping with "attitude" (other than to show the attitude-influencing players themselves are individually negatives). If this "boost" from "playing bigger" was real, you could demonstrate it with numbers. This isn't like trying to prove God exists. An actual effect on players on the ice would be measurable. It may exist in the heads of players but it does not translate into on-ice performance.

The second part about being "protectors" doesn't even make sense considering 99% of the time any of the young important players are on the ice, Haley isn't going to be out there to "protect" them; and likewise, the guys who would specifically go looking to pick a fight, by and large are not skill players and will not be out there against Kakko or Panarin or Kravtsov or whoever. The vast majority of fights in the modern game occur between two "regular" skaters.

I bet at the end of the year Haley has been in five fights and they're all against other goon-squad types, and none of them will be in the course of "protecting" anyone else of importance.

(Full disclosure: I used to be one of the bigger proponents of this type of player, and as a moderator pushed for the establishment of the Hockey Fights section of HF, where I was an original moderator. I understand the cultural feelings surrounding these guys and why they once may have been important; I now recognize that in the modern game they are a net negative.)

 

[bobbop]

NHL friend told me Haley is a gold standard locker room guy. That makes some sense

 

[True Blue]

I understand the "attitude" element which I won't get into other than to say there's never been anything quantifiable to show teams actually perform better when they have guys like this helping with "attitude" (other than to show the attitude-influencing players themselves are individually negatives). If this "boost" from "playing bigger" was real, you could demonstrate it with numbers. This isn't like trying to prove God exists. An actual effect on players on the ice would be measurable. It may exist in the heads of players but it does not translate into on-ice performance.

The second part about being "protectors" doesn't even make sense considering 99% of the time any of the young important players are on the ice, Haley isn't going to be out there to "protect" them; and likewise, the guys who would specifically go looking to pick a fight, by and large are not skill players and will not be out there against Kakko or Panarin or Kravtsov or whoever. The vast majority of fights in the modern game occur between two "regular" skaters.

I bet at the end of the year Haley has been in five fights and they're all against other goon-squad types, and none of them will be in the course of "protecting" anyone else of importance.

(Full disclosure: I used to be one of the bigger proponents of this type of player, and as a moderator pushed for the establishment of the Hockey Fights section of HF, where I was an original moderator. I understand the cultural feelings surrounding these guys and why they once may have been important; I now recognize that in the modern game they are a net negative.)

The attitude part is not about improving play per se. It is about players playing with more of an edge and a physicality that they otherwise might not or not do enough of.

Protector is a loose term. No, there is no such thing as a deterrent. But there is such a thing as challenging the challenger

 

[Inferno]

So what would your solution be?

Have a lethal power play.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Have a lethal power play.

Looking like we might finally be there...

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

The signing was not about being a deterrent. There is no such thing. It was about bringing the fight to the other team and about someone being a protector when the kids are challenged by grown men.

Players like this in the line up can cause a change of attitude and have the other players play with more gumption.

That GWG really earned Howden some whipping boy breathing room.

 

[nyr2k2]

The attitude part is not about improving play per se. It is about players playing with more of an edge and a physicality that they otherwise might not or not do enough of.

Protector is a loose term. No, there is no such thing as a deterrent. But there is such a thing as challenging the challenger

I understand. But my point is--no matter whether players are playing with more of an edge, there's never been any evidence to suggest it has a tangible effect on results. Everyone can be f***ing amped and play like a heat-seeking missile, but if it doesn't result in scoring more goals or allowing fewer, what does it count for?

 

[True Blue]

I understand. But my point is--no matter whether players are playing with more of an edge, there's never been any evidence to suggest it has a tangible effect on results. Everyone can be ****ing amped and play like a heat-seeking missile, but if it doesn't result in scoring more goals or allowing fewer, what does it count for?

You can't quantify something that is essentially an intangible asset. There is no data that I can present to you. There is only experience on watching teams that have such players in the lineup. Or watching some that do not. Something that we essentially watched all the time under AV.

 

[nyr2k2]

You can't quantify something that is essentially an intangible asset. There is no data that I can present to you. There is only experience on watching teams that have such players in the lineup. Or watching some that do not. Something that we essentially watched all the time under AV.

You can't quantify it but it would be quantifiable, if it existed. You'd be able to measure the difference with Player X and Player Y in the lineup as opposed to not having him dressed and demonstrate improved results. Because the whole point of this is that having a guy like Haley emboldens the other players and in turn they play differently and better; the reality is no one has quantified it because while guys may feel differently and approach things differently, it does not actually change the results of their play--having Haley around might alter the style of the team, but Namestnikov doesn't become a 45 point guy instead of a 35 point guy, Buchnevich doesn't increase his goal totals, etc. The team doesn't score more and doesn't allow fewer.

We didn't watch it under AV. Under AV, we watched Tanner Glass and Derek Dorsett and Arron Asham. Those guys generally sucked and having them in the lineup didn't do anything to change the way we played, despite the fact that so many here said having them around would be good for the locker room, would be good for the team. Having Haley won't do it, either. And again--even if it does make them feel differently--it is not something borne out in wins or losses.

Anyway. Haley sucks and I hope he's rarely if ever in the lineup. When he is in, hopefully he's not too much of a detriment.

 

[SA16]

You can't quantify it but it would be quantifiable, if it existed. You'd be able to measure the difference with Player X and Player Y in the lineup as opposed to not having him dressed and demonstrate improved results. Because the whole point of this is that having a guy like Haley emboldens the other players and in turn they play differently and better; the reality is no one has quantified it because while guys may feel differently and approach things differently, it does not actually change the results of their play--having Haley around might alter the style of the team, but Namestnikov doesn't become a 45 point guy instead of a 35 point guy, Buchnevich doesn't increase his goal totals, etc. The team doesn't score more and doesn't allow fewer.

We didn't watch it under AV. Under AV, we watched Tanner Glass and Derek Dorsett and Arron Asham. Those guys generally sucked and having them in the lineup didn't do anything to change the way we played, despite the fact that so many here said having them around would be good for the locker room, would be good for the team. Having Haley won't do it, either. And again--even if it does make them feel differently--it is not something borne out in wins or losses.

Anyway. Haley sucks and I hope he's rarely if ever in the lineup. When he is in, hopefully he's not too much of a detriment.

The good thing about Haley is he's more like you run of the mill 4th liner bad and not absolutely awful like McLeod or Glass.

Not that that is saying much but he's at least not completely terrible when he's not out there taking penalty after penalty (which he often is).

 

[nyr2k2]

The good thing about Haley is he's more like you run of the mill 4th liner bad and not absolutely awful like McLeod or Glass.

Not that that is saying much but he's at least not completely terrible when he's not out there taking penalty after penalty (which he often is).

Yeah, understood. It was the same with Dorsett. Also, IMO, Carcillo, who I liked.

 

[True Blue]

You can't quantify it but it would be quantifiable, if it existed. You'd be able to measure the difference with Player X and Player Y in the lineup as opposed to not having him dressed and demonstrate improved results. Because the whole point of this is that having a guy like Haley emboldens the other players and in turn they play differently and better; the reality is no one has quantified it because while guys may feel differently and approach things differently, it does not actually change the results of their play--having Haley around might alter the style of the team, but Namestnikov doesn't become a 45 point guy instead of a 35 point guy, Buchnevich doesn't increase his goal totals, etc. The team doesn't score more and doesn't allow fewer.

We didn't watch it under AV. Under AV, we watched Tanner Glass and Derek Dorsett and Arron Asham. Those guys generally sucked and having them in the lineup didn't do anything to change the way we played, despite the fact that so many here said having them around would be good for the locker room, would be good for the team. Having Haley won't do it, either. And again--even if it does make them feel differently--it is not something borne out in wins or losses.

Anyway. Haley sucks and I hope he's rarely if ever in the lineup. When he is in, hopefully he's not too much of a detriment.

You cannot possibly quantify something like this as you nave no idea of what could possibly be in the minds of a player X or Y in a given game. And it is subjective to begin with. Let's blow this up to an extreme. What is Wilson's effect on the Caps play? Or what effect on Detroit did the Grind line have? What effect on how the Devils played did the style of Claude Lemieux have?

Haley by himself is not an energizer bunny. But players like him tend to bring the fight to the other team. That in turn, tend to embolden your own team. Or so I believe based on what I watch. Nowhere have said that having him in the lineup is going to get players 5 more goals or 10 more points.

Nor am I going to get into a debate about how to quantify how many games teams will win or loose based upon an intangible asset that cannot be measured. Again, I believe that having players like that can bring a change in attitude to a line up. You can certainly disagree.