Player Discussion Tony DeAngelo: Part V

[DanielBrassard]

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.

Couldn't agree more. If we are trading ADA I'd rather add to him to get a really good player, better than Lindholm.

 

[Rongomania]

Nils might take two years to blossom into what he should turn out to be.

Also, Tony, Fox & Troubda plus whatever winds up happening to the left side this year.. It all kind of makes you think that if they find a way to keep it this way for a few years, you really don't have a 'bottom pair' this could evolve into a '2a/2b' scenario. And I dig that. If Tony doesn't hold out for all of the money, this can blossom into a pretty terrifying D just by spicing the left side up until Fox needs that big money.

 

[Edge]

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.

Well I wouldn't say it's just height and weight. It is, as you said, style as well. Certainly there are smaller guys who are tougher, and bigger guys who are more passive, but I don't think it's necessarily a strict question of toughness.

I think it's viewed more through the prism of having an undersized defense, the wear and tear that goes into playoff hockey, and trying to find more balance on the roster.

So I don't interpret it to mean they are going around with measuring tapes looking for bigger guys. I think they just want more balance --- same as they want with their forwards.

I mean obviously a guy like Lindholm isn't a giant, so it's not a matter of inherently moving skill for brawn. But having a smaller defense, regardless of the snarl, is something that would be a factor. There's no getting around it.

The same would be said if there were a bunch of forwards who were 6'2, 210 pounds and lacked certain speed or finesse attributes. It's more about the blend and the type of hockey that is played outside the regular season setting.

 

[Edge]

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.

I think the challenge with that is that you still have Lundkvist coming up as a RD and ADA is far more likely to return a core NHL player than him right now.

So the Rangers approach, at least so far, is to pursue the return and then get the ELC contract on the right side.

So even if we keep ADA on the right side, they're still going to come back to a preference on how they manage their assets. At least in so far as they've been approaching it to this point.

Now whether that's for a LD, a center, or something else, remains to be seen.

As a reminder, Calgary's primary interest to this point, and the conversations they've had, centered on Buchnevich and not ADA. So I don't know if there's really a lot of reason to go too far down the ADA rabbit hole right now.

 

[Inferno]

Well I wouldn't say it's just height and weight. It is, as you said, style as well. Certainly there are smaller guys who are tougher, and bigger guys who are more passive, but I don't think it's necessarily a strict question of toughness.

I think it's viewed more through the prism of having an undersized defense, the wear and tear that goes into playoff hockey, and trying to find more balance on the roster.

So I don't interpret it to mean they are going around with measuring tapes looking for bigger guys. I think they just want more balance --- same as they want with their forwards.

I mean obviously a guy like Lindholm isn't a giant, so it's not a matter of inherently moving skill for brawn. But having a smaller defense, regardless of the snarl, is something that would be a factor. There's no getting around it.

The same would be said if there were a bunch of forwards who were 6'2, 210 pounds and lacked certain speed or finesse attributes. It's more about the blend and the type of hockey that is played outside the regular season setting.

and that’s fair..it’s also why I’m so high on a guy like lindgren. We need guys like him.

 

[eco's bones]

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.

Trouba's going to see Matthews when the Rangers play the Leafs, the Bergeron line when we play Boston, Ovechkin and Wilson when we play the Caps, Crosby and/or Malkin against the Pens, Barzal and Lee against the Islanders. That's his job and all those players are good enough to make almost any defenseman in the league look bad. Trouba's got that job so our smaller puck moving RD aren't in over their heads because there is no way that Fox or DeAngelo are going to get Tom Wilson to budge an inch if he sets up in front of our net. The Rangers last year never really settled on a partner for Trouba either and after moving on from Skjei finally settled on Brendan Smith.

This isn't really about calling Trouba a 1D but he is our matchup guy and he's going to get 20 minutes + every night because other teams tend to play their best forwards as much as they can.

The other point that Edge is making is you need more than just skill players on your blueline. You've got to have some guys to provide size, strength and grit and that's more apparent than ever when the playoffs come around. If you don't have guys at every position you can go to war with you're not going to win.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I think the challenge with that is that you still have Lundkvist coming up as a RD and ADA is far more likely to return a core NHL player than him right now.

So the Rangers approach, at least so far, is to pursue the return and then get the ELC contract on the right side.

So even if we keep ADA on the right side, they're still going to come back to a preference on how they manage their assets. At least in so far as they've been approaching it to this point.

Now whether that's for a LD, a center, or something else, remains to be seen.

As a reminder, Calgary's primary interest to this point, and the conversations they've had, centered on Buchnevich and not ADA. So I don't know if there's really a lot of reason to go too far down the ADA rabbit hole right now.

Appreciate the reply, and can understand the trade value maximization especially if it also comes w contract certainty. I would hope they are also at least exploring Lundqvist for a LD/C prospect.

I admit I am biased in that it is so maddening to think ADA is the player on the backend I have waited to watch for basically the last 15-20 years and that I may only get to see it for 1-2 seasons.

 

[Edge]

and that’s fair..it’s also why I’m so high on a guy like lindgren. We need guys like him.

I think they'd love to have a few more Lindgrens on the roster, and, if possible, some bigger bodies with skill (Miller, Robertson, Barron, etc.) to really tire a team out.

 

[eco's bones]

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.

DeAngelo can fight well for his size and agitate a bit but he's not that tough. He doesn't hit very much and he's not strong physically. For him to play good defense his positioning and anticipation have to be spot on. There's no way he's going to outmuscle most 200 lb. forwards. He relies a lot on his puck skills and ability to move pucks quickly. He's not really built for giving and taking a lot of hits.

Lindgren doesn't really flatten that many people but he engages with them in a very combative way. If you're coming down the ice with your head down sure he can and will clock somebody. But generally he's not that physically strong either. It's more that other players know they're going to have to fight him off and he's relentless.

 

[Edge]

Appreciate the reply, and can understand the trade value maximization especially if it also comes w contract certainty. I would hope they are also at least exploring Lundqvist for a LD/C prospect.

I admit I am biased in that it is so maddening to think ADA is the player on the backend I have waited to watch for basically the last 15-20 years and that I may only get to see it for 1-2 seasons.

And I really try to pump the breaks on these things sometimes because for better or worse our imaginations can get carried away.

Lundkvist could certainly be on the table as well. The two more likely candidates were/are ADA and him.

I also get the fear that the Rangers are going to do a Zubov/Nedved for Robitaille/Samuelsson type deal. I really don't think that's what they are thinking at this stage.

 

[Off Sides]

I compare ADA to a Letang like player from back when the Pens were in their prime. He was not, and did not need to be all that good in his own zone because when he was on the ice with the Pens best players they were forcing the other team to adjust to them rather than they needed to make the adjustment.

 

[Profet]

I also get the fear that the Rangers are going to do a Zubov/Nedved for Robitaille/Samuelsson type deal.

 

[offdacrossbar]

those here that continue to believe you can just plug nils lundkvist into a top 6 d spot right now and profit are mistaken.

1. kid isnt here.

2. kid isnt ready to be here.

3. if here, kid isnt ready.

4. if hes even considered ready, thats not a given he can play

thus,

ADA not going anywhere rn.

 

[Thirty One]

those here that continue to believe you can just plug nils lundkvist into a top 6 d spot right now and profit are mistaken.

1. kid isnt here.

2. kid isnt ready to be here.

3. if here, kid isnt ready.

4. if hes even considered ready, thats not a given he can play

thus,

ADA not going anywhere rn.

What.

 

[Harbour Dog]

those here that continue to believe you can just plug nils lundkvist into a top 6 d spot right now and profit are mistaken.

1. kid isnt here.

2. kid isnt ready to be here.

3. if here, kid isnt ready.

4. if hes even considered ready, thats not a given he can play

thus,

ADA not going anywhere rn.

The sweet taste of afternoon absinthe.

 

[AKA Chief]

Winning teams don't trade their better players, when they don't even have to, for lesser players. If Lundqvist comes over and pushes ADA for playing time, then you can trade one of them.

ADA had 53 points in 68 games! Some people act like that's trivial.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

DeAngelo will get traded and we'll still have people on this board saying "he's not going anywhere"

 

[May Rih]

Winning teams don't trade their better players, when they don't even have to, for lesser players. If Lundqvist comes over and pushes ADA for playing time, then you can trade one of them.

ADA had 53 points in 68 games! Some people act like that's trivial.

I don't think the people who are saying to trade Tony D are doing so because he's not good or didn't have an excellent season. It's for a bunch of other factors (trade value, Lundqvist, Fox, contract and salary cap, filling holes in other parts of the lineup, etc.), which are all absolutely reasonable.

I'm a big advocate of signing DeAngelo. But I admit there's a pretty compelling case on the other side to trade him as well. It just comes down to a difference of opinion on this one.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

those here that continue to believe you can just plug nils lundkvist into a top 6 d spot right now and profit are mistaken.

1. kid isnt here.

2. kid isnt ready to be here.

3. if here, kid isnt ready.

4. if hes even considered ready, thats not a given he can play

thus,

ADA not going anywhere rn.

Not going anywhere but Buffalo as part of an Eichel package, you mean

 

[and 99 others]

If Lundqvist comes over and pushes ADA for playing time, then you can trade one of them.

If Lundqvist is pushing ADA for playing time, that certainly settles the Georgiev conundrum

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

The sweet taste of afternoon absinthe.

The SECOND time one of you reprobates has made me literally guffaw out loud today.

Your turn, @Trxjw!

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

If Lundqvist is pushing ADA for playing time, that certainly settles the Georgiev conundrum

I have a feeling we're going to be getting a lot of mileage out of this joke for years to come...

 

[offdacrossbar]

unless we are adding an impact player- who addresses our holes- in return for tony, there is no way we move this guy coming off last seasons breakout production. wont happen unless we get equal or better value. losing tony makes this team WORSE. right now.

although it sounds sexy to talk moving tony and just rotating in nils lundkvist, it isnt actually an idea that has much merit for this season or even next.

i read alot about how undersized this defense is and how we need to add size to the blue line to compete etc etc. i dont disagree we need to get bigger and stronger-UP FRONT, but trouba fox and ADA size wise is the SAME size as trouba fox and lundkvist. nils is a small guy- 5'11 185. that doesnt help.

lets also stop with the assumption that nils can replace ADA production wise while entering a new league at 21 yrs old, and just step in and produce similar numbers. he wont and at the very least it will be 2 years anyway.

1 injury to say adam fox and this defense is stuck in the mud. no one to carry the mail and no one to run the PP1- and no jake on the PP1 isnt gonna work. injuries happen and the fox/ADA tandem allows for some flexibility and protection.

we have the cap room now to reward tony for his outstanding production in his "show me" season. hes earned it. hes a local kid whos well liked and produced numbers right up there with the best Dmen in the league last year. that is NOT easily replaced.

can he play the left side ? undetermined but it has happened before. its an option.

"but but he stinks defensively"... his goals against and shots against numbers were better than troubas last season (granted against much lesser quality chances and players) but he isnt marc staal.

and can he excel away from the corpse of marc staal ? im thinking yes. a BIG yes.

can we add a decent place holder until one of our prized leftys is ready. yes. the market is there.

paying your "3rd pair" RD 5 mil isnt ideal but when he plays the bulk of the PP1 and can move up and down the D pairings, thats a valuable PMRD and a guy you resign to a 2 year deal.

2 years 11 mil seems fair or an arb hearing for a 1 yr deal. either way, keep this guy unless we are blown away by an offer.

 

[Chytilmania]

Not that Chiclets are dialed in but they mentioned ADA to Anaheim.

 

[IronBloodedLion]

I don’t want to lose him, but I really have a hard time seeing how ADA fits here long term.