Player Discussion Tony DeAngelo - Part II

[Off Sides]

Again even if it's all on ADA there are only so many reasons he was imported and only so many possible outcomes.

If the Rangers knew ADA was non coach-able, why trade for him?
1 They did not know
2 They knew but did so anyway
3 The Yotes made his addition contingent on any deal

If they did not know that is a mistake on the Rangers part.
If they did know and thought they could break him, and this is how they are going about doing so, not sure how that is going.
If the Yotes made them take him, that makes that trade look worse.

Outcomes
1 Rangers turn him into nothing
2 Rangers turn him into some assets or at least value which they have not
3 Rangers develop him to use for themselves.

I'd say option 1 there is closer to reality than the others.


I just don't think the Rangers can have it both ways concerning ADA and come out smelling like flowers.

They either made a mistake by acquiring him, or got crappy return on a trade.

Or they took a bad odds chance that they would be able to develop him.

Given the rest of the defenders are Smith, McQuaid, Shattenkirk, Staal, Skjei, it sure make me at least question what they are doing, and how good their defensemen evaluations really are, which in turn makes me question how they are handling not just ADA, but also Claesson, Pionk, too.

Which leads me to question how the Rangers defense looks going forward beyond those players.

 

[SA16]

I do not think it is fair to say Chayka gave up on him. He was traded as part of a package for a guy they brought in to be their 1C after he was pretty much a regular for them from February onward.

And with regards to the coaching stuff it really comes down to two things. Do you prefer a player who is "uncoachable" but performs well and helps the team win or a guy who is bad but a great guy and does everything the coach says (say, Tanner Glass)? At some point you need to stop with all the accountability nonsense and just play the guys who are the best.

 

[UnSandvich]

I do not think it is fair to say Chayka gave up on him. He was traded as part of a package for a guy they brought in to be their 1C after he was pretty much a regular for them from February onwards.

For their 1C and their 1G

 

[nyr2k2]

I do not think it is fair to say Chayka gave up on him. He was traded as part of a package for a guy they brought in to be their 1C after he was pretty much a regular for them from February onward.

And with regards to the coaching stuff it really comes down to two things. Do you prefer a player who is "uncoachable" but performs well and helps the team win or a guy who is bad but a great guy and does everything the coach says (say, Tanner Glass)? At some point you need to stop with all the accountability nonsense and just play the guys who are the best.

Chayka didn't give up on him and I never meant to imply that he did. He made a hockey trade, and was okay moving ADA. That's fine.

I just brought up Chayka as he's a young, progressive GM who didn't seem to mind ADA getting benched in the AHL or in the NHL. And it was reported he wanted to hold onto Chychrun over ADA. Mentioning Chayka was mainly to combat this idea that there's some "old school mentality" about how defensemen should play and that's what's keeping ADA down. I just really doubt that was the case with Chayka and by extension Tippett.

 

[True Blue]

great defensive defensemen but there wasnt much else to his game

Why does there have to be? Isn't that enough? I would very happily take a great defensive defenseman on my team any day of the week.

 

[True Blue]

In other word , as you said, coaches aren't getting something they want from ADA. They want him to play a mistake free game, which he wont ever. And they are willing to play inferior D man over him regardless of that fact. It's not the first time and it wont be the last.

I do not believe that to be the case. As far as a mistake free game goes. I believe that there are things that Quinn demands and is willing to live with the mistakes. Clearly, he is not seeing something that he demands from DeAngelo. He is seeing it from Pionk. Maybe it's the way they play or the way they practice or whatever.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I do not believe that to be the case. As far as a mistake free game goes. I believe that there are things that Quinn demands and is willing to live with the mistakes. Clearly, he is not seeing something that he demands from DeAngelo. He is seeing it from Pionk. Maybe it's the way they play or the way they practice or whatever.

The coach sees/knows more than we do. And it's his call. No question there.

ADA is a strange one. He has a lot of qualities that are desirable. He can skate, there's some offensive ability and he has an edge to his game. But, for some reason, he can't seem translate those attributes into a consistent game. Frustrating.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

Chayka didn't give up on him and I never meant to imply that he did. He made a hockey trade, and was okay moving ADA. That's fine.

I just brought up Chayka as he's a young, progressive GM who didn't seem to mind ADA getting benched in the AHL or in the NHL. And it was reported he wanted to hold onto Chychrun over ADA. Mentioning Chayka was mainly to combat this idea that there's some "old school mentality" about how defensemen should play and that's what's keeping ADA down. I just really doubt that was the case with Chayka and by extension Tippett.

Can we cut the bullshit with Chayka being a good GM just because he likes the FaNcY sTaTs.. At some point it boils down to Wins and Losses. The Coyotes are just as bad as we are despite tanking since 2014 and what do they have to show from it? Clayton Keller and the overrated Galchenyuk? Chayka stinks of the young guy in the room trying to out think everyone..

 

[nyr2k2]

Can we cut the bull**** with Chayka being a good GM just because he likes the FaNcY sTaTs.. At some point it boils down to Wins and Losses. The Coyotes are just as bad as we are despite tanking since 2014 and what do they have to show from it? Clayton Keller and the overrated Galchenyuk? Chayka stinks of the young guy in the room trying to out think everyone..

Did I say or even imply he was a good GM? No, I didn't. I just said he's a young guy. He's a young guy who likes the fancy stats, as you said, which would SUPPORT a case for playing ADA. You'd think ADA would be the type of player that Chayka would find value in while some crusty old GM would not. And yet...same story with Chayka as with everyone else regarding how ADA is handled.

Gorton seems to be more of your old-school GM. Chayka the young, progressively-minded GM. Yzerman is probably somewhere in between the two based on his track record. And it's always the same.

 

[True Blue]

The coach sees/knows more than we do. And it's his call. No question there.

ADA is a strange one. He has a lot of qualities that are desirable. He can skate, there's some offensive ability and he has an edge to his game. But, for some reason, he can't seem translate those attributes into a consistent game. Frustrating.

Quinn is certainly not taking it public and keeping it behind closed doors. One thing is crystal clear. Quinn has made it very apparent about what is expected and non-negotiable. He is willing to live with the mistakes of people that are doing that. Clearly something that ADA is doing does not meet that standard.

 

[Off Sides]

I do not think it is fair to say Chayka gave up on him. He was traded as part of a package for a guy they brought in to be their 1C after he was pretty much a regular for them from February onward.

And with regards to the coaching stuff it really comes down to two things. Do you prefer a player who is "uncoachable" but performs well and helps the team win or a guy who is bad but a great guy and does everything the coach says (say, Tanner Glass)? At some point you need to stop with all the accountability nonsense and just play the guys who are the best.

Right, and even if they don't like him, if they play him, he performs well in the games, they keep playing him giving the notion nothing else is wrong, his trade value goes up and they can move him for something equivalent asset wise which in turn helps them win.

However when the GM is trading for McQuaid like a month before that process should start, it's likely giving coaching much leeway in not doing so.

And from there what is their next solution? To do it again next year if they even qualify ADA and he signs something?

 

[mulli25]

I do not think it is fair to say Chayka gave up on him. He was traded as part of a package for a guy they brought in to be their 1C after he was pretty much a regular for them from February onward.

And with regards to the coaching stuff it really comes down to two things. Do you prefer a player who is "uncoachable" but performs well and helps the team win or a guy who is bad but a great guy and does everything the coach says (say, Tanner Glass)? At some point you need to stop with all the accountability nonsense and just play the guys who are the best.

Sure, but that point is not in the first year of a rebuild with a new coach who's primary goal is get everyone working hard and buying into the system.

The point you're refferencing is literally the opposite of where we're at as an organization right now.

 

[McRanger]

Before McD came to the Rangers, Girardi was already an all star. He and Staal formed one of the better defensive shutdown pairs in the league.

Wasn't he an all-star before his pairing with Mac, and a player for whom Torts vouched for as being a key part of the defense?

How many all-star defenseman have we had post 2005 lockout?

I think we're undervaluing what that actually means a bit.

Girardi was an all star in '11-'12, his first season paired with McDonagh. Ranger fans tried a write in campaign which looked like it had failed until the league added him at the last minute.

Undervaluing? I guess it depends on whether or not we like the player. I mean Tom Poti was an All-Star.

Girardi was great in Torts system. Torts valued grit and blocking shots and had nothing that resembled a coherent transition game. Its great that Torts loved him. I mean this is the same Torts that was perpetually annoyed at Hagelin, befuddled by Kreider and had absolutely no use for Zuccarello so I am not sure he is any more the end-all-be-all of talent assessment than Glen Sather, but sure, he was a great fit.

 

[McRanger]

Yandle was 23 and played 119 games in the NHL. In that time he posted 44 points. I really don’t think that’s established. But, for the sake of the discussion let’s say he is.

Does that now mean ADA is established at this point with 99 games and 32 points at the age of 23?

We can point to them starting under the same coach. Though I would argue the assertion that Yandle was established to be a stretch.

We can also point to OEL coming in an establishing himself at some point, even though he was an unknown.

We can argue as to why Arizona traded him - even with a new coach coming in.

Yandle was established not just because he played 100+ games over the course of the previous 3 seasons but because he was written in the '09-'10 lineup in pen.

The situations aren't comparable at all.

We can even argue that ADA has nearly the same number of games under his belt now that he’s 23.

But I don’t think any of them do ADA any favors — if anything they kind of debunk the whole “unproven” defense.

But, let’s go one better than that. We’ll throw all of those things off the table. They no longer exist when talking about this next point.

Somehow ADA is sitting in favor of Pionk, a defenseman the same age, with less experience, who makes his share of mistakes. Not only that, this is the second coach under which this happening.

So we are right back to square one — I don’t think it’s the “unknown” factor.

I also don’t think the expectation has ever been mistake free hockey. Ever.

And the defenseman he is playing behind aren’t playing mistake free hockey.

At some point it’s either the world against ADA, the dumbest of luck finding coaches who expect perfection, or maybe, juuuust maybe, some of this might be on him. And maybe it’s a little more than we want to acknowledge.

Because the other assertions have some pretty big discrepancies in them. That’s not a fun or happy answer to arrive at, but it’s very much there.

Great. What? This was a well thought out post but I've yet to see you or anyone actually articulate what ADA has done on the ice that would justify regularly starting all these awful D-men over him. Which leads us back to "there must be something we don't see". And at this point if that's the reason, that he is that much of a problem or distraction while not playing games, then they should just waive him and be done with it. So someone, somewhere is being stupid.

You mentioned Pionk and he's a great example of people seeing defense as "what the defenseman does around his own net" as opposed to everything that a defenseman does; seeing offense as something apart when in fact they are intrinsically linked. Pionk can't stop the opposition from coming into the zone, cant get the puck out of the zone, gives up shots and goals like he has a clause in his contract requiring him to do so and doesn't do much offensively at ES. Yet he is a mainstay in the lineup. Why? Because he scored a bunch of PP points and he doesn't make many highlight reel mistakes, for the most part he looks like hes where hes suppose to be. It was the same thing with Girardi. Girardi was a disaster and was playing top minutes until the minute WE BOUGHT OUT HIS CONTRACT. And then he signed a 2 year deal with Tampa, a clear SC contender. Its pretty clear that the people that make the decisions are more concerned about giving ice time to players they can justify because they fit some sort of archaic "d-man mold" than they are giving time to players who are less likely to have the puck go in their own net.

I don't see how anyone at this point can deny the fact that coaches, GMs and even fans have a blind spot when it comes to this, when our own team has been a hilariously glaring example.

 

[McRanger]

Quinn is certainly not taking it public and keeping it behind closed doors. One thing is crystal clear. Quinn has made it very apparent about what is expected and non-negotiable. He is willing to live with the mistakes of people that are doing that. Clearly something that ADA is doing does not meet that standard.

Since everything is so clear, maybe you can actually state what the problem is. We're on page 9 and the closest we've come is that it is "something".

 

[Edge]

I don't see how anyone at this point can deny the fact that coaches, GMs and even fans have a blind spot when it comes to this, when our own team has been a hilariously glaring example.

I'm reminded of something an old boss said that I think probably applies to ADA to some extent.

"If you're looking around your life and compiling a list of the people who don't recognize your obvious greatness, the problem probably starts with the person compiling the list."

So yes, if we throw everything else out the window, it's clearly a pot that that ADA has fallen into while traversing the valley of the blind.

Or, maybe it's as simple as Quinn has stated it to be --- he knows what he needs to do to get back into the lineup. That very much a strikes me as a "he needs to listen and demonstrate what we are instructing him to do."

Again, there's really not a big mystery here.

 

[Off Sides]

Again, I fear for the Rangers current and future defense if the others are currently listening and applying what they are being told to do.

 

[Edge]

I feel like any conversation about ADA is always one step away from people sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling, "Na-na, I can't hear you!"

He really does bring out the best in this board.

 

[True Blue]

Since everything is so clear, maybe you can actually state what the problem is. We're on page 9 and the closest we've come is that it is "something".

Just as soon as Quinn sees fit to let me behind closed doors and privy to his discussions with him, you will be the first to know. Maybe that will happen by page 11.

Or we can just suppose that Quinn is a close mined idiot who simply does not recognize talent when he sees it and is out to get ADA. Just like every other coach before him.

Girardi was a disaster and was playing top minutes until the minute WE BOUGHT OUT HIS CONTRACT. And then he signed a 2 year deal with Tampa, a clear SC contender. Its pretty clear that the people that make the decisions are more concerned about giving ice time to players they can justify because they fit some sort of archaic "d-man mold" than they are giving time to players who are less likely to have the puck go in their own net.

Of maybe, any defenseman had a hard time under AV's vaunted "system" and looked awful. Tamp recognized that he fit a solid third pairing for their Cup run and thus signed him. Without any preconceived notion of "archaic" defeneseman.

 

[Off Sides]

Mostly if there was some logical reasoning behind them playing worse players, or trying to develop lesser talented players, while rebuilding, or some asset value gain, or really anything, I would be all ears.

Part of that is the past, we have seen them fall in love with certain not very NHL talented players, play them in roles where their talent level does not compute. We have seen them choose equivalent or even lesser players who are more expensive, and none of that has ever worked towards building any lasting culture as if it had, Glass and now McQuaid would have already transformed all the current Rangers into probiotics.

 

[McRanger]

I'm reminded of something an old boss said that I think probably applies to ADA to some extent.

"If you're looking around your life and compiling a list of the people who don't recognize your obvious greatness, the problem probably starts with the person compiling the list."

So yes, if we throw everything else out the window, it's clearly a pot that that ADA has fallen into while traversing the valley of the blind.

Or, maybe it's as simple as Quinn has stated it to be --- he knows what he needs to do to get back into the lineup. That very much a strikes me as a "he needs to listen and demonstrate what we are instructing him to do."

Again, there's really not a big mystery here.

I'm reminded of something a sheriff once told me while I was hunting a serial killer in Haddonfield:

"More fancy talk."

I think it best to forget the other part of the conversation, dispense with the idioms and just lay down the points about ADA.

1) ADA has not done anything on the ice to justify his benchings.

2) Since we are 200+ posts in and no one can has bothered disputing point #1, we are led to assume that there is something off the ice that is the problem.

3) If there is an off ice issue that is actually detrimental to the team and ADA is that much of a problem then he should be waived. Why bother keeping him?

4) If his "off ice issue" is that Quinn "wants more from him" then at what point does he actually get to play regularly to show improvement? And how is playing obviously worse players (who the coach should most certainly "want more from") good for either on ice success or the concept of accountability? At what point do you just acknowledge that a young player may not improve and be forced to play him over the significantly inferior options? Never? You just roll with worse players to teach them a lesson about being the best "you" that you can be?

This whole thing is a legitimately bizarre situation. And I don't even particularly like ADA.

 

[McRanger]

Just as soon as Quinn sees fit to let me behind closed doors and privy to his discussions with him, you will be the first to know. Maybe that will happen by page 11.

Or we can just suppose that Quinn is a close mined idiot who simply does not recognize talent when he sees it and is out to get ADA. Just like every other coach before him.

So there is nothing to justify his benchings that you can actually point to? Got it.

I'm not sure you understand the word "clear". Although I guess technically its very clear how unclear the situation is?

Of maybe, any defenseman had a hard time under AV's vaunted "system" and looked awful. Tamp recognized that he fit a solid third pairing for their Cup run and thus signed him. Without any preconceived notion of "archaic" defeneseman.

Girardi has been a healthy scratch this season. And he's played better with Tampa than he did with the Rangers.

 

[Edge]

If we're looking for the things that might be a factor, they are within the posts we have here: the penalties, the undisciplined play, the possibility of the coaching staff thinking he resembles a wing when pinching, diminishing returns on production despite what we just mentioned, not implementing what they're asking him to implement, etc.

Whether one agrees with that or finds it fair is a different matter.

I think outside of this board, the Vegas game is probably a microcosm of where ADA is at.

 

[True Blue]

So there is nothing to justify his benchings that you can actually point to? Got it.

Once Quinn decides to include me in the inner circle, you will be the first to know.

I'm not sure you understand the word "clear". Although I guess technically its very clear how unclear the situation is?

Maybe it's the flying off the handle. Maybe it's not getting back to defense after leading the rush. Maybe he has been instructed to do specific things and he is not doing them. As Quinn is keeping things in the locker room, I can only speculate. Sorry.

Girardi has been a healthy scratch this season. And he's played better with Tampa than he did with the Rangers.

I was referring to the thought process when they signed him.

 

[Off Sides]

I'm reminded of something a sheriff once told me while I was hunting a serial killer in Haddonfield:

"More fancy talk."

I think it best to forget the other part of the conversation, dispense with the idioms and just lay down the points about ADA.

1) ADA has not done anything on the ice to justify his benchings.

2) Since we are 200+ posts in and no one can has bothered disputing point #1, we are led to assume that there is something off the ice that is the problem.

3) If there is an off ice issue that is actually detrimental to the team and ADA is that much of a problem then he should be waived. Why bother keeping him?

4) If his "off ice issue" is that Quinn "wants more from him" then at what point does he actually get to play regularly to show improvement? And how is playing obviously worse players (who the coach should most certainly "want more from") good for either on ice success or the concept of accountability? At what point do you just acknowledge that a young player may not improve and be forced to play him over the significantly inferior options? Never? You just roll with worse players to teach them a lesson about being the best "you" that you can be?

This whole thing is a legitimately bizarre situation. And I don't even particularly like ADA.

That is basically my take too, it's not like I foresee ADA as some great player, I foresee him as a decent cheap 3rd pair who can maybe move up here and there.

That is more than I see in like 5 out of the 7 of the other D, and if they can not get the cheap easy stuff correct this whole rebuild, once the cap catches up to them, is going to be a mess.