Player Discussion Tony DeAngelo: Part V

[Edge]

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.

It's worth noting again, any ADA trade is not just for the sake of making a trade. It's for team balance, it's based on the returns you can pursue, and, unfortunately, it will be based around finances.

You've already got Trouba on a large contract, he isn't going anywhere and the Rangers aren't looking to trade him.

You've got Fox and Lundkvist in the organization. The former isn't going anywhere, and the latter would give them an ELC through 2024 and is probably 4 or 5 years in general from commanding a salary vaguely within the ADA ballpark. Additionally, you're probably hard pressed to trade Lundkvist for an established, quality LD in the near future.

I get the love for ADA, but I just don't think we're being realistic about the terrain in front of us. Guys we love are going to be moved. I can't emphasize that enough.

 

[Edge]

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

I think Nylander is more skilled offensive player, but I also don't think that's what we're looking for.

I mean, we've got offensive-minded wings pretty well covered. We're paying Kreider, Panarin and Buch a combined $20 million? We've got Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere coming up behind them.

I don't see Nylander at close to $7 million being on their radar anymore. Before Panarin, before Kreider? Sure. Maybe even before Lafreniere. But at this point, that door is more or less closed.

Barkov would be fantastic, but now you're talking about an 80-90 point center, and the cost is going to be very, very high both from a trade perspective and in 24 months when he becomes an UFA. If anything, I'd say he's an option if the Rangers balk at committing to Zibanejad long-term.

With regards to trying something, I think there's a difference between guys who have had success with something, vs. trying an experiement that didn't wow you at the lower levels or other pro stops.

ADA's defense on the left side...has not been good. That's a big reason why we haven't seen it with the Rangers. It wasn't a scenario where we just happened to need him on the right side, so that's where he caught on. No, it was a deliberate shift away from playing him on the left side that started even before the Rangers for to him.

One of things I would not discount, be it in hockey, baseball, whatever sport, is the comfort level of an athlete with the position they play.

Most players, as a matter of a pride, will say, "Sure, I can play there. No problem."

But you see all too often where it gets into their psyche, where they struggle, and eventually it starts impacting the areas of their game that used to be fine.

I just don't think the gain is there with some of these position changes. It's delaying the inevitable, and running the serious risk of actually harming a player's value when you do have to go ahead and make a move anyway.

For me, this is one of those subjects where the fantasy of what we want to happen, or what we hope could happen, outweighs the reality of what we're pretty sure to actually get.

 

[eco's bones]

It's worth noting again, any ADA trade is not just for the sake of making a trade. It's for team balance, it's based on the returns you can pursue, and, unfortunately, it will be based around finances.

You've already got Trouba on a large contract, he isn't going anywhere and the Rangers aren't looking to trade him.

You've got Fox and Lundkvist in the organization. The former isn't going anywhere, and the latter would give them an ELC through 2024 and is probably 4 or 5 years in general from commanding a salary vaguely within the ADA ballpark. Additionally, you're probably hard pressed to trade Lundkvist for an established, quality LD in the near future.

I get the love for ADA, but I just don't think we're being realistic about the terrain in front of us. Guys we love are going to be moved. I can't emphasize that enough.

Some fans are newer than others. I'm closing in on 50 years following the Rangers---players get moved, sometimes they happen to be favorites. What happens is you find new favorites and after some years of watching you learn to let things go. It's not all about the name on the back of the jersey--it's about the jersey. Your main hope is when do you trade someone who is still young and very talented that you get good value back. There is almost no player who is beyond some kind of critique either. I think sometimes people build their favorites up into equivalents of Marvel Comic Books heroes.

If we do trade DeAngelo I want something young coming back. I think the Rangers idea would be to fill a hole and hopefully in the top 6. We have an excess of RD and if we want to bring in a center I think we'll have a better chance of getting a quality one through a trade than through the draft. If we keep Tony I expect it will be on a 1 or 2 year arbitrated term. If not this year I think he will eventually move before that time is up.

 

[Harbour Dog]

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.

I believe that the organization doesn't want to try ADA at LD, despite his analytics there being better last season (in a limited sample size) and that he played the majority of his junior career there - I just think that it is wrong.

We can say his defense looked worse on the left side, but that doesn't show up in the underlying numbers. ADA and Fox played keepaway while they were together. Maybe we want to say that Fox on his natural side carried the pair; but ADA on the heinous left side, clearly never dragged it down.

ADA isn't a kid like Chytil, or Kakko, or Kravtsov; he's 24 and he just finished 4th in the league in points by defensemen - while dragging around the husk of Marc Staal. I don't believe for a second that playing him on the left side with a competent partner is worse than on the right side with Staal. And even if it is only a wash, which I doubt, why wouldn't we want to get him an extra minute or two of 5v5 TOI a game?

Honestly, I don't know how it would go to move him to the left. But it seems like it would work very well, and I'm not sure why it is so easy to write the idea off.

Trial by error is a huge part of evolution. What do we have to lose? A few points early in our last transition season to being a contender? Aside from wanting to side with the organization, I genuinely don't understand why there is any pushback against trying to get our best four defensemen into our top4.

 

[eco's bones]

I think Nylander is more skilled offensive player, but I also don't think that's what we're looking for.

I mean, we've got offensive-minded wings pretty well covered. We're paying Kreider, Panarin and Buch a combined $20 million? We've got Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere coming up behind them.

I don't see Nylander at close to $7 million being on their radar anymore. Before Panarin, before Kreider? Sure. Maybe even before Lafreniere. But at this point, that door is more or less closed.

Barkov would be fantastic, but now you're talking about an 80-90 point center, and the cost is going to be very, very high both from a trade perspective and in 24 months when he becomes an UFA. If anything, I'd say he's an option if the Rangers balk at committing to Zibanejad long-term.

With regards to trying something, I think there's a difference between guys who have had success with something, vs. trying an experiement that didn't wow you at the lower levels or other pro stops.

ADA's defense on the left side...has not been good. That's a big reason why we haven't seen it with the Rangers. It wasn't a scenario where we just happened to need him on the right side, so that's where he caught on. No, it was a deliberate shift away from playing him on the left side that started even before the Rangers for to him.

One of things I would not discount, be it in hockey, baseball, whatever sport, is the comfort level of an athlete with the position they play.

Most players, as a matter of a pride, will say, "Sure, I can play there. No problem."

But you see all too often where it gets into their psyche, where they struggle, and eventually it starts impacting the areas of their game that used to be fine.

I just don't think the gain is there with some of these position changes. It's delaying the inevitable, and running the serious risk of actually harming a player's value when you do have to go ahead and make a move anyway.

For me, this is one of those subjects where the fantasy of what we want to happen, or what we hope could happen, outweighs the reality of what we're pretty sure to actually get.

Kind of reminds me of the Nils Lundkvist interview a few months back--when asked about playing the left side, there was a pregnant pause and then kind of like 'Err, uh, I guess, I'll play anywhere the team needs me' answer or something close to that effect. You could tell he was surprised even to be asked that. It's not smart in any case to throw somebody so young and new to the league into an unfamiliar position. You're pretty much setting them up to fail.

One team I think I'd kick the tires with is Anaheim. The Rangers like Zegras. Not sure DeAngelo would work but you can always find out.

 

[Inferno]

I think Nylander is more skilled offensive player, but I also don't think that's what we're looking for.

I mean, we've got offensive-minded wings pretty well covered. We're paying Kreider, Panarin and Buch a combined $20 million? We've got Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere coming up behind them.

I don't see Nylander at close to $7 million being on their radar anymore. Before Panarin, before Kreider? Sure. Maybe even before Lafreniere. But at this point, that door is more or less closed.

Barkov would be fantastic, but now you're talking about an 80-90 point center, and the cost is going to be very, very high both from a trade perspective and in 24 months when he becomes an UFA. If anything, I'd say he's an option if the Rangers balk at committing to Zibanejad long-term.

With regards to trying something, I think there's a difference between guys who have had success with something, vs. trying an experiement that didn't wow you at the lower levels or other pro stops.

ADA's defense on the left side...has not been good. That's a big reason why we haven't seen it with the Rangers. It wasn't a scenario where we just happened to need him on the right side, so that's where he caught on. No, it was a deliberate shift away from playing him on the left side that started even before the Rangers for to him.

One of things I would not discount, be it in hockey, baseball, whatever sport, is the comfort level of an athlete with the position they play.

Most players, as a matter of a pride, will say, "Sure, I can play there. No problem."

But you see all too often where it gets into their psyche, where they struggle, and eventually it starts impacting the areas of their game that used to be fine.

I just don't think the gain is there with some of these position changes. It's delaying the inevitable, and running the serious risk of actually harming a player's value when you do have to go ahead and make a move anyway.

For me, this is one of those subjects where the fantasy of what we want to happen, or what we hope could happen, outweighs the reality of what we're pretty sure to actually get.

And while all this is fair...I just think Lindholm for ada as a 1 for 1 is very underwhelming....

If we're talking about buy low options I'd be more interested in keller... Can we get him and have arizona eat 2 mil a season?

2 terrible years but the talent is undeniably there.

 

[EdJovanovski]

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.

DeAngelo could carry him around like he did Staal

 

[Trxjw]

And while all this is fair...I just think Lindholm for ada as a 1 for 1 is very underwhelming....

If we're talking about buy low options I'd be more interested in keller... Can we get him and have arizona eat 2 mil a season?

2 terrible years but the talent is undeniably there.

I think Keller is even less of an option at center than Nylander or Lindholm.

 

[eco's bones]

And while all this is fair...I just think Lindholm for ada as a 1 for 1 is very underwhelming....

If we're talking about buy low options I'd be more interested in keller... Can we get him and have arizona eat 2 mil a season?

2 terrible years but the talent is undeniably there.

Lindholm had 78 points two years ago and would have prorated between 60 and 65 this year. I was looking at the trade forum yesterday and Calgary fans were pretty much calling him their best forward (better than Tkachuk even). He has a really good two way game and stick him on a line with Panarin that could be a very dangerous combination. Anyway the Calgary posters were saying how their GM wished they could clone Lindholm 18 times. They looked at DeAngelo + Buchnevich for Lindholm as very underwhelming. Maybe those Calgary fans are over the top obstinate--I don't know. Maybe they really know their player's worth.

 

[Off Sides]

With ADA I think it’s easy to get caught up in individual production. By that I mean that it’s easy to look at moving ADA in isolation and say we won’t replace that level of offense. The truth is that we likely wouldn’t — from a single player.

But in the event that ADA is traded, I don’t think the objective is to necessarily replace offensive production in fell swoop.

The idea would be that Fox gives you 80 percent of that production and superior all-around play, while Lundkvist gives you some production and you make yourself stronger in another area (let’s say center for example).

Maybe a Trouba, Fox, Lundkvist trip gives you 20 let’s points than a Trouba, Fox, ADA trio, but that difference is made up by giving up less goals and bolstering another part of the roster.

I say that because one of the fears with moving ADA is that we’d be losing a unique, individual offensive player. And we would. But the question is can we build a better overall team with the return he’d bring back, the money we’d utilize differently, and the other RD we’d have coming in shortly?

I'd say yes, yet I still think that can be done by signing ADA, then need be, eventually trading him.

I think next season should be seen as a transition/ let the dust settle type of year. I know that is unrealistic yet it would make a lot of sense to have a lot of contracts ending when the Rangers are gaining back a lot of dead or badly allocated cap space.

If it turns out some LD prospect takes a top4 D spot, or even top pair, I think that should be left to play out rather than the Rangers feeling they need to import that right away.

Similar with center, mostly if Chytil can take a top 6C spot, I would rather give that a chance than see the Rangers stick someone in front of him long term.

Could name many other prospects and youth who could change the whole, the Rangers need this or that landscape between now and next off-season.

They'll have a ton more info next off-season, I think they should just give all the RFAs one year deals, sort some of it out next trade deadline, then try for more of a concrete structure the following off-season.

 

[Edge]

I believe that the organization doesn't want to try ADA at LD, despite his analytics there being better last season (in a limited sample size) and that he played the majority of his junior career there - I just think that it is wrong.

We can say his defense looked worse on the left side, but that doesn't show up in the underlying numbers. ADA and Fox played keepaway while they were together. Maybe we want to say that Fox on his natural side carried the pair; but ADA on the heinous left side, clearly never dragged it down.

ADA isn't a kid like Chytil, or Kakko, or Kravtsov; he's 24 and he just finished 4th in the league in points by defensemen - while dragging around the husk of Marc Staal. I don't believe for a second that playing him on the left side with a competent partner is worse than on the right side with Staal. And even if it is only a wash, which I doubt, why wouldn't we want to get him an extra minute or two of 5v5 TOI a game?

Honestly, I don't know how it would go to move him to the left. But it seems like it would work very well, and I'm not sure why it is so easy to write the idea off.

Trial by error is a huge part of evolution. What do we have to lose? A few points early in our last transition season to being a contender? Aside from wanting to side with the organization, I genuinely don't understand why there is any pushback against trying to get our best four defensemen into our top4.

I'd say if the objective is to move on from and be far better than the results produced by a left side featuring Skjei and Staal, ADA on the left side really isn't the answer.

Again, could we do it? Sure.

Does a defense that features Trouba, Lundkvist and Fox on the right, with ADA, Lindgren and Miller on the left sound like one that is going to be a viable option for a serious contender? No, it doesn't to me --- for a variety of reasons that have been stated. So I feel like we're right back to delaying an inevitable move at some point.

Again, I think you can survive in limited doses, as you've described, but I remember that Fox-ADA combination you're referring to and that is not something that's going to fly in 2023, or in the type of playoff series we've seen the last few years. This league is tight, and it's fast, and these games are being decided by one goal in OT.

To be blunt, we're not going to have 3 right-handed, puck moving defensemen under 6'0 and 200 pounds manning the blueline as a serious contender. We're just not. And I hate to tell people that the answer would be the same with or without Trouba, and it would be the same if Lindgren were 6'3, 220 instead of 6'0, 195. I'm sorry, the odds of that being a thing are just incredibly slim to none.

 

[Backstreets Back]

If they trade Deangelo I just hope the value they get back is fair. Trouba must improve substantially with a better partner because his play this year was not what you want out of an 8 million dollar dman. Like, at all.

This org also fed Girardi top pair minutes until he could no longer skate. They'll play Trouba on the top pair because he is payed to be the top pair dman. We could have Makar, and 21 year old Karlsson and Doughty right now along with Trouba. This org would trade one of the 3, and play another 13 minutes a night on the bottom pair.

 

[Edge]

I'd say yes, yet I still think that can be done by signing ADA, then need be, eventually trading him.

I think next season should be seen as a transition/ let the dust settle type of year. I know that is unrealistic yet it would make a lot of sense to have a lot of contracts ending when the Rangers are gaining back a lot of dead or badly allocated cap space.

If it turns out some LD prospect take a top4 D spot, or even top pair, I think that should be left to play out rather than the Rangers feeling they need to import that right away.

Similar with center, mostly if Chytil can take a top 6C spot, I would rather give that a chance than see the Rangers stick someone in front of him long term.

Could name many other prospects and youth who could change the whole, the Rangers need this or that landscape between now and next off-season.

They'll have a ton more info next off-season, I think they should just give all the RFAs one year deals, sort some of it out next trade deadline, then try for more of a concrete structure the following off-season.

That's a certainly a possibility. The concept of moving ADA isn't limited just to this off-season. It could take place a year from now. But the odds are fairly high that it's coming at some point. And that's the real takeaway.

Keeping in mind that the Rangers are going to potentially look to sell high, not jeopardize their investment, and will strongly consider a deal now. On the flip side, ADA may or may not be open to a 1 year deal again, so we'll have to see how his camp feels.

 

[Off Sides]

That's a certainly a possibility. The concept of moving ADA isn't limited just to this off-season. It could take place a year from now. But the odds are fairly high that it's coming at some point. And that's the real takeaway.

Keeping in mind that the Rangers are going to potentially look to sell high, not jeopardize their investment, and will strongly consider a deal now. On the flip side, ADA may or may not be open to a 1 year deal again, so we'll have to see how his camp feels.

ADA would not necessarily have a choice. If the Rangers offer him a qualifier, he is likely going to elect arbitration.

If he elects and they went to arbitration before the hearing the Rangers get to select a one or two year term award given he has (two or more) three RFA years left.

The only way he'd end up on more than one year is if the Rangers offered it to him (Or under the very unlikely options, if he does not elect arbitration and the Rangers did, or neither elect and he holds out, or signs an offer sheet)

 

[Edge]

ADA would not necessarily have a choice. If the Rangers offer him a qualifier, he is likely going to elect arbitration.

If he elects and they went to arbitration before the hearing the Rangers get to select a one or two year term award given he has (two or more) three RFA years left.

The only way he'd end up on more than one year is if the Rangers offered it to him, in which case I'd only offer 1 or 4 years but that is a different post.

Also true, but I just don't know if that's their preferred path when all is said and done. I think it could be a temporary status, if they can't fine a deal they like. But I just don't think it changes much of how they view the long-term approach.

 

[Off Sides]

Also true, but I just don't know if that's their preferred path when all is said and done. I think it could be a temporary status, if they can't fine a deal they like. But I just don't think it changes much of how they view the long-term approach.

Overall I just think the Rangers trying to set themselves up long term this off-season in any position likely ends up with a less cap hit internal solution pushing for that spot they just filled.

While there are certainly odds of things happening versus not, I doubt the Rangers sign Kreider if they knew they'd end up with the 1st overall pick who is a LW.

ADA on any realistic deal can be moved if Lundkvist ends up pushing for that spot, and I know no one will like this but it may turn out Fox has a sophomore wall type season. Or maybe some team out there would give up a top line center for Fox but not for ADA when the Rangers are deciding if they should extend Zbad or not.

More to the point, I would like to see the Rangers remain as flexible as they can. The flat cap, the who knows what becomes of next season, to me at least feels like there is no reason to try to put a stamp on what this team is, or what they need or do not right now. I believe any longer term choices would be better made after icing a team and seeing what they do after many games rather than off the last 3 they had.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Tony on the left could work in spurts but not long term. Who are you pairing him with?

The team doesn't trust him with difficult match ups on the right, do people honestly think they're going to trust him taking those same match ups with Trouba on his off-side? I mean come on

 

[Leetch3]

Tony on the left could work in spurts but not long term. Who are you pairing him with?

The team doesn't trust him with difficult match ups on the right, do people honestly think they're going to trust him taking those same match ups with Trouba on his off-side? I mean come on

who are you pairing him with is the biggest question...it solves the issue of getting all 3 RD into the top 4 in terms of ice time. but most consider the biggest need is finding a partner for trouba. does anyone see ADA as that fit?

 

[Edge]

Tony on the left could work in spurts but not long term. Who are you pairing him with?

The team doesn't trust him with difficult match ups on the right, do people honestly think they're going to trust him taking those same match ups with Trouba on his off-side? I mean come on

Timing is also a big component of roster building.

For example, Miller has a chance to be core piece of this team, but he could be several years out from really hitting that more promiment role. So you have to bridge the current roster to the one that I might feature him performing at a higher level.

That could be a significant factor in how the Rangers approach the left side of their defense - finding someone who can eat some of those ugly minutes while guys like Lindgren, Miller, Robertson, Reunanen, etc. develop (or don't).

Is ADA the guy who eats those ugly minutes? Eh, probably not. And more important, what would those minutes do to his performance and his value?

It's a reminder that simply moving a guy to a different position or different role isn't always as cut and dry as the desire to give it a shot.

 

[Harbour Dog]

who are you pairing him with is the biggest question...it solves the issue of getting all 3 RD into the top 4 in terms of ice time. but most consider the biggest need is finding a partner for trouba. does anyone see ADA as that fit?

On paper, no, but Staal isn't a fit with anybody on paper and ADA made that work.

I'd like them to at least try it, even though it doesn't sound like there is internal interest in doing so.

 

[Leetch3]

That could be a significant factor in how the Rangers approach the left side of their defense - finding someone who can eat some of those ugly minutes while guys like Lindgren, Miller, Robertson, Reunanen, etc. develop (or don't).

I think that is a big factor for me...trouba allowed deangelo and fox to not face situations they weren't ready for and develop and both took huge strides this year and next year will hopefully take on more of those situations themselves. but they could use a similar young vet on the left side to help the kids there.

 

[Off Sides]

I would not see any reason to move anyone to the left, if ADA can do what he did with Staal on his left how difficult is it really to just find him someone who he can play with?

Having one of Trouba, Fox or ADA on ice all the time is a good thing should coaching use them towards their strengths and weaknesses.

Having a crappy 3rd pair on ice for 13-17 minute a game is a bad thing.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I think the talk of shifting ADA to LD is kind of ignoring a much simpler and better alternative.

We (and sadly perhaps NYR mgmt) are WAY too hung up on "pairings" listed on the lineup sheet vs actual usage. ADA played 20 min a game last season. 3rd on the NYR, 2nd excluding Skjei. Is he really a "third pairing" defenseman?

There has to be a way better reason given than "cap allocation to a 3rd pairing dman" because that is extremely simplistic.

Crazy idea - keep your RIDICULOUSLY productive 20 min / game dman, and rotate ELCs/cheap vets on LD. The idea that they need a $5M+ "matchup guy" to go with Trouba seems to be the questionable cap allocation. It is a lot easier to fill that role for cheap than a defensman as productive as ADA was.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Tony on the left could work in spurts but not long term. Who are you pairing him with?

The team doesn't trust him with difficult match ups on the right, do people honestly think they're going to trust him taking those same match ups with Trouba on his off-side? I mean come on

What should happen is Lindgren-Fox is the top pairing, matchup pair and ADA-Trouba is the pairing that gets more favorable usage. It won't happen but should. Trouba is not really a guy you want going up against the big guns anyway.

 

[Inferno]

I'd say if the objective is to move on from and be far better than the results produced by a left side featuring Skjei and Staal, ADA on the left side really isn't the answer.

Again, could we do it? Sure.

Does a defense that features Trouba, Lundkvist and Fox on the right, with ADA, Lindgren and Miller on the left sound like one that is going to be a viable option for a serious contender? No, it doesn't to me --- for a variety of reasons that have been stated. So I feel like we're right back to delaying an inevitable move at some point.

Again, I think you can survive in limited doses, as you've described, but I remember that Fox-ADA combination you're referring to and that is not something that's going to fly in 2023, or in the type of playoff series we've seen the last few years. This league is tight, and it's fast, and these games are being decided by one goal in OT.

To be blunt, we're not going to have 3 right-handed, puck moving defensemen under 6'0 and 200 pounds manning the blueline as a serious contender. We're just not. And I hate to tell people that the answer would be the same with or without Trouba, and it would be the same if Lindgren were 6'3, 220 instead of 6'0, 195. I'm sorry, the odds of that being a thing are just incredibly slim to none.

I think it's pretty.... unfortunate that the team puts any weight whatsoever on how big or tall a guy is versus what he actually can do on the ice. Brady skjei is what... 6 foot 3... 220? And he sure doesn't play like it. Lindgren is smaller and lighter and levels guys constantly.

I personally put far more stock into how effective the player is instead of that stuff.

DeAngelo for as small as he is is probably one of our tougher defenseman.

Again I can see them moving DeAngelo..and I'd definitely be underwhelmed if it were for Lindholm. But it is what it is.

I remember when the rangers traded for mika and I was pumped. If they traded DeAngelo for Lindholm I'd just be so...blah.