Player Discussion Tony DeAngelo - Part II

[Harbour Dog]

For me, I think I tend to lead towards calling a guy athletic as opposed to skilled when I feel that his tools are without question, but he hasn't established an equivalent toolbox yet. Whenever I think about the distinction between athletic and skilled, John Moore comes immediately to mind as a freak athlete who I always hesitated to call "skilled".

In Miller's case there's no doubt that he has athleticism to spare, but we need to see more evidence that he has a corresponding toolbox for a position that he never grew up playing. That said, I have a lot of faith in the kid and I don't expect he'll have been a pro for long before the 'athletic' trope gets phased out by 'skilled'.

 

[nyr2k2]

this type of comment really grinds my gears.....ill tell you why, do you think no player has gone through teams like he has? im sure that at 23 YEARS OLD there is no way a player can continue to grow, paul coffey was traded 7, ill repeat that typed out SEVEN times in his career. that must make him a cancer and a horrible hockey player

give me a break man

That's such an absurd comparison. Coffey was traded for the first time when he had played seven years in the league and had posted a 138 point season. He moved around a few times over things like money and also because he hated Scotty Bowman. But this stuff happened when he was in the process of establishing himself as one of the greatest ever to play the position. Trying to compare his situation to DeAngelo's, it just makes it hard to take the rest of what you say seriously.

Tampa drafted Tony in the first round and Yzerman had concerns with him and then traded him for a second round pick just a year after they got him into their system. Then he goes to Arizona and gets himself suspended for pushing an official and when he comes up, manages to rub Tippett the wrong way and gets benched ten times. Then a year after they acquire him, Arizona is comfortable enough moving him. He promptly manages to find a way to get AV to scratch him or bench him regularly. He then almost immediately finds a way to get on David Quinn's bad side. This is somehow the same as Paul Coffey?

No one has said DeAngelo is a horrible hockey player, and you ought to be embarrassed, honestly, for building that straw man. Has anyone called him a cancer? I haven't seen that personally. No one has said he can't grow or mature; to the contrary, many have said that he needs to grow and mature.

Either way, you're taking the seemingly valid argument--that DeAngelo having problems in all three organizations to this point, and consistently having issues staying on an NHL ice surface, is partly (if not entirely) his own doing--and totally misconstruing it, creating a ridiculous straw man and using an even worse comparison to somehow justify it. I mean honestly, this post is horrible.

 

[Edge]

For me, I think I tend to lead towards calling a guy athletic as opposed to skilled when I feel that his tools are without question, but he hasn't established an equivalent toolbox yet. Whenever I think about the distinction between athletic and skilled, John Moore comes immediately to mind as a freak athlete who I always hesitated to call "skilled".

In Miller's case there's no doubt that he has athleticism to spare, but we need to see more evidence that he has a corresponding toolbox for a position that he never grew up playing. That said, I have a lot of faith in the kid and I don't expect he'll have been a pro for long before the 'athletic' trope gets phased out by 'skilled'.

Miller is an amazing athlete, easily the best pure athlete not on the Rangers' roster, and probably one of, if not they best athlete they've had in a long time.

But I will confess that I have a concern that people will see the athleticism and raise the expectations on him. We've seen this with a lot of our prospects, and we've talked about it recently and how it correlates to some of the more extreme opinion shifts we see around here. Miller does have the tools to be a very, very good NHL player. But there are still a lot of variables in the mix and I don't want us to get too far ahead of ourselves with how we project him.

When I see Miller, I see exactly the type of player that this board could turn on very quickly down the road.

Right now, let's say a reasonable upside is a very good second pair defenseman. If he becomes more, great. But if he's "only" a second pair defenseman, then he's exactly where we thought he'd be in the first place.

 

[Thirty One]

Not that I think the amount of times someone is traded is an exact representative of how good they are, but look at the amount Paul Coffey was traded when he was good, and compare it to when he was less good.

 

[Edge]

I will ask this without knowing the answer.

Can anyone recall, in recent memory, a 23 year old first round pick who was with his third organization, and yet to establish himself as an NHL player, who ended up becoming a star? How about a first pairing defenseman? Second pairing? Third pairing?

What if we remove the first round pick qualifier, does that change anything?

This is a legit question (no ah-ha waiting as a response).

 

[Off Sides]

Zherdev was on three teams by the age of 25 is about as close as I can think of and not a D.

Yet that is kind of the whole thing I don't even understand when that went down, there has to be something pretty wrong for that type of talent not to be valuable.

If there is something that wrong, why are the Rangers trading for it in the first place?

If they can think they can fix whatever that is, then why are they not sticking with that?

And if they did not know, why not?

And if they did know and still made that deal, why?

No matter how I slice it there was a mistake made or one is being made. So I'm still unsure how the Rangers should be absolved of the blame and the blame moved to the player.

 

[Edge]

Zherdev was on three teams by the age of 25 is about as close as I can think of and not a D.

Yet that is kind of the whole thing I don't even understand when that went down, there has to be something pretty wrong for that type of talent not to be valuable.

If there is something that wrong, why are the Rangers trading for it in the first place?

If they can think they can fix whatever that is, then why are they not sticking with that?

And if they did not know, why not?

And if they did know and still made that deal, why?

No matter how I slice it there was a mistake made or one is being made. So I'm still unsure how the Rangers should be absolved of the blame and the blame moved to the player.

And even Zherdev had, at one point, established himself as an NHL player --- three 20 goal seasons, three 50+ point seasons, nearly 100 goals, and technically had just been traded to his second team at around this point. He did spend 4 full seasons in Columbus (would've been 5 without the lockout).

 

[nyr2k2]

I will ask this without knowing the answer.

Can anyone recall, in recent memory, a 23 year old first round pick who was with his third organization, and yet to establish himself as an NHL player, who ended up becoming a star? How about a first pairing defenseman? Second pairing? Third pairing?

What if we remove the first round pick qualifier, does that change anything?

This is a legit question (no ah-ha waiting as a response).

This situation reminds me, in a lot of ways, of the other Tony D: Anthony Duclair. Not a perfect parallel, but kid coming out of juniors with loads of talent but maturity issues, followed by demotions, benchings, uneven play, trades, etc. And now Tony D is languishing in Columbus or whatever, NHL career in real jeopardy.

 

[Rangers in 7]

That's such an absurd comparison. Coffey was traded for the first time when he had played seven years in the league and had posted a 138 point season. He moved around a few times over things like money and also because he hated Scotty Bowman. But this stuff happened when he was in the process of establishing himself as one of the greatest ever to play the position. Trying to compare his situation to DeAngelo's, it just makes it hard to take the rest of what you say seriously.

Tampa drafted Tony in the first round and Yzerman had concerns with him and then traded him for a second round pick just a year after they got him into their system. Then he goes to Arizona and gets himself suspended for pushing an official and when he comes up, manages to rub Tippett the wrong way and gets benched ten times. Then a year after they acquire him, Arizona is comfortable enough moving him. He promptly manages to find a way to get AV to scratch him or bench him regularly. He then almost immediately finds a way to get on David Quinn's bad side. This is somehow the same as Paul Coffey?

No one has said DeAngelo is a horrible hockey player, and you ought to be embarrassed, honestly, for building that straw man. Has anyone called him a cancer? I haven't seen that personally. No one has said he can't grow or mature; to the contrary, many have said that he needs to grow and mature.

Either way, you're taking the seemingly valid argument--that DeAngelo having problems in all three organizations to this point, and consistently having issues staying on an NHL ice surface, is partly (if not entirely) his own doing--and totally misconstruing it, creating a ridiculous straw man and using an even worse comparison to somehow justify it. I mean honestly, this post is horrible.

his one argument has been this is his third team, if he wants to use any other argument thats fine. Coffey was one of the most traded players in nhl history, do you think there was a reason for it? i could tell you right now he was a "problem" in the locker room like everyone perceives ADA to be. I could use the argument with plenty other players traded multiple times by nhl teams

btw that pushing of a ref suspension was completely overblown, to me people have an agenda against him off the ice and continue to be oblivious with his on ice results. i can count on one hand the games he has played poor enough to POTENTIALLY be scratched but he should have played most if not every game so far this season

im not embarrased at all about the comparison, he stated that ADA had played for three teams already, mike sillinger played for 12 teams over his career, does that make him a cancer in the locker room? no team wanted to bring him back? i used coffey because he was TRADED 7 times in his career

 

[Rangers in 7]

I will ask this without knowing the answer.

Can anyone recall, in recent memory, a 23 year old first round pick who was with his third organization, and yet to establish himself as an NHL player, who ended up becoming a star? How about a first pairing defenseman? Second pairing? Third pairing?

What if we remove the first round pick qualifier, does that change anything?

This is a legit question (no ah-ha waiting as a response).

nedved was with his 3rd organization by 23 and 4th by 24 he was drafted 2nd overall

i know he had a 70 point explosion by 21 then averaged over a ppg for 20 games for the blues?

he had a weird career and idk if you could consider him a star or not

olli jokinen had played for 3 organizations by the time he was 22, i know not a star but was picked 3rd overall

 

[Thirty One]

I will ask this without knowing the answer.

Can anyone recall, in recent memory, a 23 year old first round pick who was with his third organization, and yet to establish himself as an NHL player, who ended up becoming a star?

We'll have to see how McIlrath's career plays out before I can truly answer this.

 

[Edge]

nedved was with his 3rd organization by 23 and 4th by 24 he was drafted 2nd overall

i know he had a 70 point explosion by 21 then averaged over a ppg for 20 games for the blues?

he had a weird career and idk if you could consider him a star or not

olli jokinen had played for 3 organizations by the time he was 22, i know not a star but was picked 3rd overall

Good answers.

I think Jokinen is probably closest (Nedveds trades were due to contract and compensation factors).

I’m just trying to get references in my head when it comes to ADA, because we’re definitely drifting into the territory of being the exception rather than rule.

 

[Rangers in 7]

Good answers.

I think Jokinen is probably closest (Nedveds trades were due to contract and compensation factors).

I’m just trying to get references in my head when it comes to ADA, because we’re definitely drifting into the territory of being the exception rather than rule.

im not saying deangelo will be a star or anything but the argument against him was that he is with his 3rd team already, that really isnt ridiculous and the kid is talented....i think he should really get more playing time regardless....coffey was just an example of a player that had been traded 7 times in his career, i should have used a less skilled player but ADA has similar skill sets if you think about it and his defense isnt horrendous

you could argue nedved is more similar because it had more to do with his attitude and being a pain lol

 

[nyr2k2]

his one argument has been this is his third team, if he wants to use any other argument thats fine. Coffey was one of the most traded players in nhl history, do you think there was a reason for it? i could tell you right now he was a "problem" in the locker room like everyone perceives ADA to be. I could use the argument with plenty other players traded multiple times by nhl teams

btw that pushing of a ref suspension was completely overblown, to me people have an agenda against him off the ice and continue to be oblivious with his on ice results. i can count on one hand the games he has played poor enough to POTENTIALLY be scratched but he should have played most if not every game so far this season

im not embarrased at all about the comparison, he stated that ADA had played for three teams already, mike sillinger played for 12 teams over his career, does that make him a cancer in the locker room? no team wanted to bring him back? i used coffey because he was TRADED 7 times in his career

Coffey was a superstar when he was first traded. Comparing that to DeAngelo is disingenuous at best.

Sillinger was a great journeyman. Journeymen have a tendency to play for a lot of teams. That's why they're journeymen. Are you implying that's where DeAngelo is headed? (I know that's not what you're implying.)

Using "he has played for three organizations by 23" as your sole argunear against ADA is silly, I will acknowledge that. But, it's not just the three organizations part that makes it compelling, it's the scratches and demotions and run-ins along the way.

If the guy was known as a good citizen in the league, I don't think anyone would really care that we're his third stop. It's just the totality of the circumstances. Coaches and GMs seem to end up having issues with him and he can't find regular playing time, and as a result is on organization number three. I think that's the point of the "three teams" thing.

But regardless, Coffey... Come on. We're talking a 23-year-old with a history that hasn't established anything as opposed to, again, a guy who scored 138 points in a season and played over 500 games before being traded. There is literally nothing in common between the two guys other than the fact that Coffey did become a dick with an inflated head which eventually caused him to move around.

We all understand guys get traded, sometimes a lot, and it's not necessarily because they're bad guys (it can often be the opposite case). But with DeAngelo...totality of the circumstances. Everyone gets dealt a hand; he's made probably a couple not so great moves and now he's where he's at.

 

[Thirty One]

Journeyman have a tendency to play for a lot of teams.

Link?

 

[Overcast]

I will ask this without knowing the answer.

Can anyone recall, in recent memory, a 23 year old first round pick who was with his third organization, and yet to establish himself as an NHL player, who ended up becoming a star? How about a first pairing defenseman? Second pairing? Third pairing?

What if we remove the first round pick qualifier, does that change anything?

This is a legit question (no ah-ha waiting as a response).

Another non-defenseman, but Martin Straka might fit the bill - drafted 19th overall by the Pens, had 1 good season (30g-34a) and took him another 4 years and 3 other teams, then being traded back to the Pens in 98-99 for him to best his 64 point season.

Oleg Tverdovsky? 2nd overall by the Ducks, did nothing much in his first stint there. Traded to the Jets for half a season and didn't do much there either, then to Phoenix where he had a 55 point season. Traded back to the Ducks where he had 2 back-to-back 50 point seasons, traded to NJ and won a Cup, 2 seasons overseas, then went to Carolina and won a Cup.

 

[McRanger]

Mike Silinger switched teams almost every year to the point where it seemed like he’d played for every team in the league. It didn’t make him any less of a valuable depth player.

I really don’t see what moving teams has to do with anything.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

He's basically the same size as Burns, Carlson, Ekholm, Byfuglien, Hedman, Seth Jones, Nurse, etc. Smaller than some of them. And plenty of forwards like Ovechkin, Rantanen, Stone, Wheeler, etc. Those are big dudes and they move around (generally) great. They also have a lot of skill. You can be big and move around well and still have skill. Miller has plenty of skill.

I’ve watched miller play more than a couple times and I’ve yet to see the hands, shoot, or passing of those guys you listed. But that’s not to say he can’t develop those skills more.

I think we’re getting a bit off track this convo is more for the Miller thread at this point. If you have a response may I suggest we continue there?

 

[Rangers in 7]

Coffey was a superstar when he was first traded. Comparing that to DeAngelo is disingenuous at best.

Sillinger was a great journeyman. Journeymen have a tendency to play for a lot of teams. That's why they're journeymen. Are you implying that's where DeAngelo is headed? (I know that's not what you're implying.)

Using "he has played for three organizations by 23" as your sole argunear against ADA is silly, I will acknowledge that. But, it's not just the three organizations part that makes it compelling, it's the scratches and demotions and run-ins along the way.

If the guy was known as a good citizen in the league, I don't think anyone would really care that we're his third stop. It's just the totality of the circumstances. Coaches and GMs seem to end up having issues with him and he can't find regular playing time, and as a result is on organization number three. I think that's the point of the "three teams" thing.

But regardless, Coffey... Come on. We're talking a 23-year-old with a history that hasn't established anything as opposed to, again, a guy who scored 138 points in a season and played over 500 games before being traded. There is literally nothing in common between the two guys other than the fact that Coffey did become a dick with an inflated head which eventually caused him to move around.

We all understand guys get traded, sometimes a lot, and it's not necessarily because they're bad guys (it can often be the opposite case). But with DeAngelo...totality of the circumstances. Everyone gets dealt a hand; he's made probably a couple not so great moves and now he's where he's at.

I said using Coffey was a bad example, he did get traded a lot and I understand he was a superstar...I was just saying players get traded regardless of their skills but to be fair based on his play this season do you think it has been fair that he has been scratched? My opinion is a most resounding no, his defensive shortcomings are extremely overblown. I’m not saying ADA will be a superstar but he should be playing a top 4 role with power play time without a doubt in my opinion.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Wasn’t a 1st rounder, but Stralman probably fits your question @Edge

Played for Toronto, CBJ and had a training camp with the devils before ending up here at 25 years old.

Different skillset obviously but a Dman will a path you described.

 

[Edge]

im not saying deangelo will be a star or anything but the argument against him was that he is with his 3rd team already, that really isnt ridiculous and the kid is talented....i think he should really get more playing time regardless....coffey was just an example of a player that had been traded 7 times in his career, i should have used a less skilled player but ADA has similar skill sets if you think about it and his defense isnt horrendous

you could argue nedved is more similar because it had more to do with his attitude and being a pain lol

ADA is a bit of a strange case for me — though I agree he should get more playing time.

I’m equally torn by his talent, and by the fact that there’s really little or - fairly infrequent precedent for him to become a key asset for us.

 

[Edge]

Mike Silinger switched teams almost every year to the point where it seemed like he’d played for every team in the league. It didn’t make him any less of a valuable depth player.

I really don’t see what moving teams has to do with anything.

Trying to gauge how much of a precedent there is.

For as much as we might try to fight these things, they usually do give us a pretty good idea of what we’re looking at.

And that last part is pretty telling - for all his talent, history tends to point to ADA maybe being more of a depth player than a core player. That kind of goes back to my question about how many went on to become stars, first pairing, etc.

 

[Edge]

Wasn’t a 1st rounder, but Stralman probably fits your question @Edge

Played for Toronto, CBJ and had a training camp with the devils before ending up here at 25 years old.

Different skillset obviously but a Dman will a path you described.

That’s a potentially good example.

 

[Inferno]

He's better than pionk tho.

 

[Edge]

Giving some thought to this and realizing John Moore is somewhat close. His third organization came at 24, and he found his niche as a depth defenseman with his fourth at age 25.

That wouldn’t be a bad outcome for ADA, but would admittedly be a little bit of a let down.

Again, none of this is a gauge of talent, just merely an interesting look at what history tells us from similar or somewhat similar scenarios.