Player Discussion Tony DeAngelo: Part V

[EdJovanovski]

Its pretty obvious who they are going to pay to play here and who they aren't, they will not pay Trouba, Fox and Deangelo 20 million to play the same position. It's not happening.

Why would we pay by far the worst dman out of the 3?

 

[Edge]

Why would we pay by far the worst dman out of the 3?

The simple answer is that the Rangers just don’t feel that is the case.

It almost sounds like a flippant response, but ADA is the guy they have ranked third on their right side. And so the two candidates are him and Lundkvist.

In the end, the Rangers are likely to choose ADA’s return, coupled with Lundkvist’s all-around upside and contract.

 

[EdJovanovski]

The simple answer is that the Rangers just don’t feel that is the case.

It almost sounds like a flippant response, but ADA is the guy they have ranked third on their right side. And so the two candidates are him and Lundkvist.

In the end, the Rangers are likely to choose ADA’s return, coupled with Lundkvist’s all-around upside and contract.

I don’t know what Jeff & the boys are smoking then! By nearly every single metric Trouba is the worst dman on our team and DeAngelo is the best. Trouba also has a monster contract, I’m sure we could sign DeAngelo long term for much cheaper than 8 mill. Trouba can also barely skate, Fox isn’t a great skater either, nor is Lundkvist. All small too, and no grit like DeAngelo. Oh well, our rebuild has been fantastic so far, they can make one misstep and keep that anchor of a contract and let arguably the best offensive dman in the league go for all I care!

 

[smoneil]

Thus far I’ve consistently heard the team doesn’t really have a desire to go that route - at least long term.

The short answer is that in a top league where a split second delay can be a difference maker in a game or a series, it just typically doesn’t work for defensemen.

And the feeling is also that with the type of defenseman ADA is, it would probably only serve to enhance the weaker part of the games and diminish the stronger parts.

Just feels like it used to be so much more common, and to move the first real 50+ point PMD we've had in forever without trying seems a bit brash. Is it (playing a D on their off side) not as common as it used to be? This just feels like the kind of move that we're going to regret in a couple years' time. I just have a bad feeling about it.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Just feels like it used to be so much more common, and to move the first real 50+ point PMD we've had in forever without trying seems a bit brash. Is it (playing a D on their off side) not as common as it used to be? This just feels like the kind of move that we're going to regret in a couple years' time. I just have a bad feeling about it.

I’ve heard people say Tony played LD in junior and actually prefers LD, haven’t dug much into that claim though. But if so:

DeAngelo - Trouba
Lindgren - Fox
Miller - Lundkvist

Could be deadly

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Just feels like it used to be so much more common, and to move the first real 50+ point PMD we've had in forever without trying seems a bit brash. Is it (playing a D on their off side) not as common as it used to be? This just feels like the kind of move that we're going to regret in a couple years' time. I just have a bad feeling about it.

The game is so fast now retrieving pucks and making clearing attempts or breakout passes on the wrong side of the ice takes an extra millisecond that can end up with the puck in the back of the net. Even having your stick on the wrong side can make it harder to box people out at the side of the net. If i was betting on who could handle it best it would be Fox but that would be a bad spot to be putting him in at this point. As long as the trade is good and makes the overall team better there will be no regrets.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I’ve heard people say Tony played LD in junior and actually prefers LD, haven’t dug much into that claim though. But if so:

DeAngelo - Trouba
Lindgren - Fox
Miller - Lundkvist

Could be deadly

Looks like a train wreck to me to have your worst defensive player on the top pair on his off side playing against Crosby , MacKinnon, Mcdavid, Matthews etc etc etc.

 

[eco's bones]

The game is so fast now retrieving pucks and making clearing attempts or breakout passes on the wrong side of the ice takes an extra millisecond that can end up with the puck in the back of the net. Even having your stick on the wrong side can make it harder to box people out at the side of the net. If i was betting on who could handle it best it would be Fox but that would be a bad spot to be putting him in at this point. As long as the trade is good and makes the overall team better there will be no regrets.

That's actually a conversation myself and Ola had at least on several occasions. Neither of us like d-men playing on their offside and basically it's because forechecks come in so hard and fast these days and the more a d-man's back is to the play the less he sees and being on his backhand a lot more also is a major issue. That extra split second it may take to recognize and make a play---or reaction time takes a hit and actually speaking of taking a hit that will happen a lot more too. Nights full of soft dumps into the corner with a hard forecheck following--some energy lines like on the Islanders for instance have some monster hitters and do that play all the time. If your player's back is very often turned away from the onrushing play he is going to get plastered a lot.

At least most European and some college teams have larger ice surfaces giving defensemen more time to react to pressure. In those circumstances it's much easier to get away with that kind of switch. The defensemen also much likelier to directly face only one forechecker than two. The NHL is the fastest league and the ice surfaces are smaller. The CHL we're talking 16 to 20 year olds of wider variety of talent and DeAngelo when playing there was in the upper echelon of talent--the majority of CHL players will not play pro. DeAngelo in Sault Ste. Marie would have been an average size player not small which he is in the NHL. That said late in games last year the Rangers often paired Fox and DeAngelo. At least some of those games I would think that the opposition would have backed off the forecheck and clogged the center ice area to protect a lead but thinking back I'm not sure that was that way all the time. There is a lot of situational shit that happens in an NHL game let along NHL season that without going back and actually checking game by game why the pairing switches were made we are left guessing a bit. But it's not like the Rangers have never done it--Brendan Smith a left shot is often on the right as well--they just try to stay away from it as much as possible.

 

[SA16]

Just feels like it used to be so much more common, and to move the first real 50+ point PMD we've had in forever without trying seems a bit brash. Is it (playing a D on their off side) not as common as it used to be? This just feels like the kind of move that we're going to regret in a couple years' time. I just have a bad feeling about it.

It used to be common. Then teams got this idea that you can't play a guy on his off side. Now it's swung way too far in the other direction to the point many teams won't even try it for a bit and see whether or not it works so they'll trot out guys who can't play just to have the handedness the way they want it.

 

[Edge]

It used to be common. Then teams got this idea that you can't play a guy on his off side. Now it's swung way too far in the other direction to the point many teams won't even try it for a bit and see whether or not it works so they'll trot out guys who can't play just to have the handedness the way they want it.

It also depends on the players.

I think the Rangers current crop of RHD’s doesn’t really inspire a desire to see what happens when you play them out of position.

I’ve heard people say Tony played LD in junior and actually prefers LD, haven’t dug much into that claim though. But if so:

DeAngelo - Trouba
Lindgren - Fox
Miller - Lundkvist

Could be deadly

I am confused though. You just called Trouba the worst defenseman on the team, and now we’re going to pair him with ADA, on his off side, on our first line?

I just don’t see that ending well against the better teams in the NHL. And that goes back to the original point - you can get by for a little while, but that’s just not really a plan moving for the long-term.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

It used to be common. Then teams got this idea that you can't play a guy on his off side. Now it's swung way too far in the other direction to the point many teams won't even try it for a bit and see whether or not it works so they'll trot out guys who can't play just to have the handedness the way they want it.

The reason is, no red line, faster players, less time and space. It really has nothing to do with an idea that ran rampant. If you watched Vegas in the playoffs you could see their overloaded left handed d struggling to get pucks out, keep pucks in and make quick transitions because teams targetted this deficiency in the team. The game plan against them was to overload their left side and make the right side the only exit point for the puck in the oppositions dzone and they constantly dumped pucks in on the right side in the vegas defensive zone. Its not ideal, late in a game you need some extra firepower sure but if your roster is made up without balance it will backfire. The only player i think has the ability to do it is Fox and im doubtful they wanna burden him with that unnecessarily.

 

[egelband]

I think DeAngelo and fox play such different offensive games...fox is way more about misdirection and DeAngelo is way more about threading difficult passes...

Yes. Good point. I think they are complementary and not redundant at all. I love having both of them on the team. Trouba, too, for that matter.

 

[Edge]

At some point, guys are going to be moved to build this team out. Not because the Rangers don't like them, but because there are needs elsewhere, and there's a cap, and certain market values for guys that are likely to bring different returns.

Addtionally, at some point we need players who have demonstrated an ability to actually play the positions we would have them man. We need guys who can play LD and can play center, not would we think might play LD or center.

At some point, there's only so many experiments we can conduct with guys playing out of position and actually continue to develop our players and grow our team.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I don't know about all of these arguments about not playing ADA on the left side. It seems ridiculous to not even try it, regardless of how much one can explain away not playing a dman on his offside.

ADA himself, prefers it, and in limited TOI with Fox on the right, they've dominated. Not trying out a look that maximizes our use for our best guys, because we might have a couple games where one of them proves to be sub-par, is beyond silly.

 

[Edge]

I don't know about all of these arguments about not playing ADA on the left side. It seems ridiculous to not even try it, regardless of how much one can explain away not playing a dman on his offside.

ADA himself, prefers it, and in limited TOI with Fox on the right, they've dominated. Not trying out a look that maximizes our use for our best guys, because we might have a couple games where one of them proves to be sub-par, is beyond silly.

Sometimes the reason someone doesn't try it is because they already saw how it looked in practice, or how it looked in the OHL, or how a guys strengths and weaknesses plays into a move like that.

For some reason, over the last two years, a section of this board has really gravitated toward position changes. It's weird to me because it really is one of those HF Board type things that isn't a topic within the organization and isn't really a topic with other fan groups.

The short answer as to why they don't try ADA or Fox or Trouba on the left side is pretty straight forward --- because they don't think they play better. They don't view it as the long-term makeup of a top team.

Could they skate by with it? Sure. And maybe they do for a small stretch. But I have yet to encounter a single person within the organization or with another team that thinks that's the best approach for the Rangres.

Even meeting the concept half-way, I can tell you the Rangers have little to no intent of having a defense that has Fox, ADA and Lundkvist on it. And that's without getting into the the concerns of adding Lindgren into the mix and having 4 of our your 6 defenseman listed at 6'0, 200 pounds or smaller.

And that's without getting into the concept of how salary is distributed on the roster, the balance of ELCs and big contracts and how valuable that is to a club, and other factors.

I really don't know how else to emphasize that this isn't a direction they are entertaining right now and it probably won't be in the future. It's just not seen as viable idea.

 

[SA16]

It also depends on the players.

I think the Rangers current crop of RHD’s doesn’t really inspire a desire to see what happens when you play them out of position.



I am confused though. You just called Trouba the worst defenseman on the team, and now we’re going to pair him with ADA, on his off side, on our first line?

I just don’t see that ending well against the better teams in the NHL. And that goes back to the original point - you can get by for a little while, but that’s just not really a plan moving for the long-term.

I don't recall ever calling Trouba the worst defenseman on the team?

I have an issue with crossing things off without trying them. Maybe Trouba/DeAngelo/Fox will work on the left side. Maybe they won't. But it is certainly worth a week, two weeks, or a month to see if it does.

 

[Chytilmania]

It would be a shame to not even try it this upcoming season. We aren't asking for 6 defensemen to play on their off side, it's one. Theodore has looked great for Vegas and Tony has shown he's one of the best offensive defensemen in the league so it's worth a try.

 

[Edge]

I don't recall ever calling Trouba the worst defenseman on the team?

That's why the response wasn't under your quote.

 

[SA16]

That's why that response wasn't under your quote.

Ah. The good old ignore feature doing an incredibly poor job I assume.

 

[Edge]

I don't recall ever calling Trouba the worst defenseman on the team?

I have an issue with crossing things off without trying them. Maybe Trouba/DeAngelo/Fox will work on the left side. Maybe they won't. But it is certainly worth a week, two weeks, or a month to see if it does.

I get that, but I think it has some limits too.

ADA's defense, when he played the left side, was even worse than it is on the right side --- and that's saying something.

At some point, we have to accept what players are and what they aren't. Sure, we could force the issue and try to salvage something from moving things around. Or we can really focus on solving the problem and getting the right pieces, for the right positions.

On any given day, we want to take a look at Kravtsov at center, Lafreniere at center, ADA on the left side, Kakko at center, etc. etc.

I think the key is focusing on the development of players in their proper positions.

Player development is tricky enough while balancing confidence, with momentum, with putting players in positions to enjoy the rewards of their efforts, while minimzing how you expose them.

On the one hand we talk about how important player development is, on the other hand we want to get experimental with kids who play the positions they play for a reason.

At the end of the day, we've got what we've got and we'll need to plug in the holes that exist. And devoting time, energy and resources to trying to make a square pegs fit into round holes carries significantly more risk of giving us a depreciated value than of solving the actual problem.

 

[Inferno]

At some point, guys are going to be moved to build this team out. Not because the Rangers don't like them, but because there are needs elsewhere, and there's a cap, and certain market values for guys that are likely to bring different returns.

Addtionally, at some point we need players who have demonstrated an ability to actually play the positions we would have them man. We need guys who can play LD and can play center, not would we think might play LD or center.

At some point, there's only so many experiments we can conduct with guys playing out of position and actually continue to develop our players and grow our team.

But I guess if we follow that thought process why are they going after Lindholm...a guy who is playing wing, to move him to center...we know he can play center but his current team felt he was a better fit on the wing...hmm

 

[motopanekeku]

Just feels like it used to be so much more common, and to move the first real 50+ point PMD we've had in forever without trying seems a bit brash. Is it (playing a D on their off side) not as common as it used to be? This just feels like the kind of move that we're going to regret in a couple years' time. I just have a bad feeling about it.

This is the guy we thought we were drafting with guys like Sanguinetti and DelZotto. Why would we trade him away? Maybe in an earthshaking hockey trade but otherwise no I don't see it.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

But I guess if we follow that thought process why are they going after Lindholm...a guy who is playing wing, to move him to center...we know he can play center but his current team felt he was a better fit on the wing...hmm

Different story though.

I'm fairly certain he played primarily C up until this past year. And I'm almost positive @Edge has said the Rangers like him in that position.

 

[Edge]

But I guess if we follow that thought process why are they going after Lindholm...a guy who is playing wing, to move him to center...we know he can play center but his current team felt he was a better fit on the wing...hmm

The short is answer because Lindholm has played center at NHL, has taken several thousand faceoffs over the years, has had success there, and is playing on the wing not because he can't play center, but because Calgary chose to play him on the right side of the first line.

In the last four years alone, Lindholm has taken more than 3,000 faceoffs and won more than 53 percent of them. That alone, would compare favorably to what we have right now.

So that's not really an experiment, nor is it an approach that hasn't had success at the NHL level yet.

And that's without going into the factors of switching from center to either wing being different than switching from left wing to right wing, or right defense to left defense.

But Lindholm's experience and ADA's proposed position change is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Inferno]

The short is answer because Lindholm has played center at NHL, has taken several thousand faceoffs over the years, has had success there, and is playing on the wing not because he can't play center, but because Calgary chose to play him on the right side of the first line.

In the last four years alone, Lindholm has taken more than 3,000 faceoffs and won more than 53 percent of them. That alone, would compare favorably to what we have right now.

So that's not really an experiment, nor is it an approach that hasn't had success at the NHL level yet.

And that's without going into the factors of switching from center to either wing being different than switching from left wing to right wing, or right defense to left defense.

But Lindholm's experience and ADA's proposed position change is not an apples to apples comparison.

Fair enough.

I feel like you don't know what you have till you try it.

I mean strome was a winger and a center...hayes was a winger and a center. Ada plays both sides, etc
And I guess we can go back to the nylander discussion then with regards to a potential target

I for one thing nylander is a much better player..but honestly I'm not really interested in him because I'm not sure he fits the style the rangers really want to go to.

A guy like barkov is basically the blueprint player of who they want.

Of course he'd be exponentially more expensive but still.. stylistically he's the guy... I think Lindholm is an upgrade over strome...my issue is if we're talking straight up for deangelo...I think we lose that trade...kinda badly