Player Discussion Tony DeAngelo: Part V

[Mandar]

Lol I know but it’s a personal thing with me. And not just me. The whole team seems to love him. He’s a big part of morale imo

Yep....I mean the whole team was so happy when he would score! Imagine that....everyone liked it!! I remember when people posted how everyone smiled....you don’t see that every day. So special.

 

[gravey9]

NYR has to be careful here. Every dollar over 5m/year could lessen the return in a trade. His value may also be damaged if everyone knows that Nils is coming and ADA won't have a spot. So, the AAV is crucial here. The other option is trading him after you know his number but before you make a deal.

 

[egelband]

NYR has to be careful here. Every dollar over 5m/year could lessen the return in a trade. His value may also be damaged if everyone knows that Nils is coming and ADA won't have a spot. So, the AAV is crucial here. The other option is trading him after you know his number but before you make a deal.

That’s a fine line though. His number for the Rangers is probably a bit lower than it is, say, for Buffalo or Calgary or even Minnesota. There would have to be a strong buyer-beware caveat. But I agree in principle. There are a lot of moving parts. (Which might actually end up scuppering any deal).

 

[Leetch3]

NYR has to be careful here. Every dollar over 5m/year could lessen the return in a trade. His value may also be damaged if everyone knows that Nils is coming and ADA won't have a spot. So, the AAV is crucial here. The other option is trading him after you know his number but before you make a deal.

obviously there is a limit that hurts his value but its not 5 mil. thats still a good contract imo

 

[gravey9]

obviously there is a limit that hurts his value but its not 5 mil. thats still a good contract imo

It really depends. Let's say he gts 5.5m AAV over two years. If ADA is paid more in year 2 of the contract, say 5.75, that becomes his qualifying in year 3. Which means, he's likely to make over 6m or more thereafter. So, if we sign him to a 2 year deal at say 5.5 AAV we are limited the trade partners a bit to the ones that view ADA as a top 4 RD. And not a bottom pairing PPQB. But I suppose that's the dilemma in general with ADA. He's about to get paid like a top 4. But it's unclear if his D-zone abilities will allow him to be that on a playoff team.

The other thing that really complicates his value both as a Ranger and beyond is that he's been paired with Marc Staal for the most part and coached by Ruff. Had he been paired with Lindgren and coached by Martin -- we could see his overall abilities totally differently because the holes in his game might be more shielded. If he stays, he must be paired with an LD who plays robust D and keeps up with the play. This won't just be good for the Rangers next year it could radically effect how he's viewed by the rest of the NHL.

 

[Leetch3]

It really depends. Let's say he gts 5.5m AAV over two years. If ADA is paid more in year 2 of the contract, say 5.75, that becomes his qualifying in year 3. Which means, he's likely to make over 6m or more thereafter. So, if we sign him to a 2 year deal at say 5.5 AAV we are limited the trade partners a bit to the ones that view ADA as a top 4 RD. And not a bottom pairing PPQB. But I suppose that's the dilemma in general with ADA. He's about to get paid like a top 4. But it's unclear if his D-zone abilities will allow him to be that on a playoff team.

The other thing that really complicates his value both as a Ranger and beyond is that he's been paired with Marc Staal for the most part and coached by Ruff. Had he been paired with Lindgren and coached by Martin -- we could see his overall abilities totally differently because the holes in his game might be more shielded. If he stays, he must be paired with an LD who plays robust D and keeps up with the play. This won't just be good for the Rangers next year it could radically effect how he's viewed by the rest of the NHL.

he's getting over 6 mil on that next deal regardless

 

[CasusBelli]

Lol I know but it’s a personal thing with me. And not just me. The whole team seems to love him. He’s a big part of morale imo

I guess if we move Trouba with some retention or if we add an NMC to the first several years of a front loaded ADA contract, it could work, especially not having to pay Hank and Staal anymore.

 

[CasusBelli]

It really depends. Let's say he gts 5.5m AAV over two years. If ADA is paid more in year 2 of the contract, say 5.75, that becomes his qualifying in year 3. Which means, he's likely to make over 6m or more thereafter. So, if we sign him to a 2 year deal at say 5.5 AAV we are limited the trade partners a bit to the ones that view ADA as a top 4 RD. And not a bottom pairing PPQB. But I suppose that's the dilemma in general with ADA. He's about to get paid like a top 4. But it's unclear if his D-zone abilities will allow him to be that on a playoff team.

The other thing that really complicates his value both as a Ranger and beyond is that he's been paired with Marc Staal for the most part and coached by Ruff. Had he been paired with Lindgren and coached by Martin -- we could see his overall abilities totally differently because the holes in his game might be more shielded. If he stays, he must be paired with an LD who plays robust D and keeps up with the play. This won't just be good for the Rangers next year it could radically effect how he's viewed by the rest of the NHL.

If he’s in the 5.5 area, I wonder if we could swap him for William Nylander (and maybe a pick?), as the Leafs could really use some help on defense. Not that we couldn’t, or course, but I’m thinking 3-4 years from now — assuming Miller and Lundkvist pan out.

I also hear the Leafs are tired of Andersen. Maybe we throw in Georgiev, and they throw in Andersen (with some retention) and a pick. Freddy would be our backup to Shesty — this would just be to maybe get a better pick than we otherwise would (price of clearing precious cap for them).

 

[EdJovanovski]

NYR has to be careful here. Every dollar over 5m/year could lessen the return in a trade. His value may also be damaged if everyone knows that Nils is coming and ADA won't have a spot. So, the AAV is crucial here. The other option is trading him after you know his number but before you make a deal.

Love how it's a forgone conclusion that the 24 year old dman who just had the highest scoring season of any Ranger dman since Brian Leetch (in a shortened season to boot), and 4th in scoring among NHL dmen while being 5 years younger than anyone ahead of him; has already lost his spot on the team to player who's never played an NHL game, or even a game on this continent. Never change HF!

 

[egelband]

I believe there’s fire with the Rangers-listening-on-ADA talk. But I don’t think they’re listening because they’re concerned about finding him minutes. I think that’s more of a fan concern than something David Quinn worries about.

I think they’re listening for hockey reasons, trying to fill a need elsewhere.

 

[TheRedressor]

It really depends. Let's say he gts 5.5m AAV over two years. If ADA is paid more in year 2 of the contract, say 5.75, that becomes his qualifying in year 3. Which means, he's likely to make over 6m or more thereafter. So, if we sign him to a 2 year deal at say 5.5 AAV we are limited the trade partners a bit to the ones that view ADA as a top 4 RD. And not a bottom pairing PPQB. But I suppose that's the dilemma in general with ADA. He's about to get paid like a top 4. But it's unclear if his D-zone abilities will allow him to be that on a playoff team.

The other thing that really complicates his value both as a Ranger and beyond is that he's been paired with Marc Staal for the most part and coached by Ruff. Had he been paired with Lindgren and coached by Martin -- we could see his overall abilities totally differently because the holes in his game might be more shielded. If he stays, he must be paired with an LD who plays robust D and keeps up with the play. This won't just be good for the Rangers next year it could radically effect how he's viewed by the rest of the NHL.

Didn't know his QO offer works that way if it is higher in year 2. Thanks!

 

[NYRFANMANI]

f***. WILLIAM. NYLANDER.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Give him the 2 year deal at 5.5M and everyone is happy.

 

[GAGLine]

I guess if we move Trouba with some retention or if we add an NMC to the first several years of a front loaded ADA contract, it could work, especially not having to pay Hank and Staal anymore.

Trouba isn't getting traded, and especially not with retention. ADA isn't eligible for any kind of movement protection in the next 3 years.

 

[GAGLine]

Love how it's a forgone conclusion that the 24 year old dman who just had the highest scoring season of any Ranger dman since Brian Leetch (in a shortened season to boot), and 4th in scoring among NHL dmen while being 5 years younger than anyone ahead of him; has already lost his spot on the team to player who's never played an NHL game, or even a game on this continent. Never change HF!

If Columbus offered Werenski for ADA, would you make that deal?

 

[Kovalev27]

If Columbus offered Werenski for ADA, would you make that deal?

that is a no brainer

 

[AntNYR]

Love how it's a forgone conclusion that the 24 year old dman who just had the highest scoring season of any Ranger dman since Brian Leetch (in a shortened season to boot), and 4th in scoring among NHL dmen while being 5 years younger than anyone ahead of him; has already lost his spot on the team to player who's never played an NHL game, or even a game on this continent. Never change HF!

That's not the argument and you know it. Nobody* is saying that Tony has lost his spot to Lundkvist. What people are saying is that Lundkvist will likely need a spot on the right side and currently one does not exist. There is a difference and again, you know it. People are also saying that the Rangers have too much money tied on RD's, especially once Fox's contract is up, and that Tony might be the one to go. Guess what, you know this too. Dealing from strength to shore up a weakness? Yup, you know this one too. We can always cherry-pick parts of the argument to either make our side look good or the other foolish, but partial truths make for whole lies. Never change HF indeed.

And just for the record: I hope that the team finds a way to keep Tony but as things stand right now, due to Trouba's contract and NMC, Fox's play, the cap, and the holes in our roster I view Tony as the odd man out.

(*or at least very, very few.)

 

[EdJovanovski]

That's not the argument and you know it. Nobody* is saying that Tony has lost his spot to Lundkvist. What people are saying is that Lundkvist will likely need a spot on the right side and currently one does not exist. There is a difference and again, you know it. People are also saying that the Rangers have too much money tied on RD's, especially once Fox's contract is up, and that Tony might be the one to go. Guess what, you know this too. Dealing from strength to shore up a weakness? Yup, you know this one too. We can always cherry-pick parts of the argument to either make our side look good or the other foolish, but partial truths make for whole lies. Never change HF indeed.

And just for the record: I hope that the team finds a way to keep Tony but as things stand right now, due to Trouba's contract and NMC, Fox's play, the cap, and the holes in our roster I view Tony as the odd man out.

(*or at least very, very few.)

There are certainly people on here who argue Lundkvist is already a lock to be better than Tony, but nah I would prefer to keep the most talented player of the bunch which is Tony AINEC.

 

[EdJovanovski]

If Columbus offered Werenski for ADA, would you make that deal?

Nope

 

[GAGLine]

Nope

That's the wrong answer, but the one I expected. We'd be a better team with Werenski than with ADA.

 

[EdJovanovski]

That's the wrong answer, but the one I expected. We'd be a better team with Werenski than with ADA.

One guy is on a pair with arguably the worst dman in the NHL in Staal and the other is with arguably the best in Jones. Also playing in the best defensive system in the NHL. Nowhere near the offensive acumen of DeAngelo, and if they swapped places I’m sure DeAngelo would have better defensive metrics too

 

[Kovalev27]

Werenski Trouba
Miller Fox
Lindgren Lundkvist

makes us better than any scenario that involves keeping tony and I love Tony’s game. With u there. But this shouldn’t even be a question. Let’s continue

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

I dunno, we’re gonna be disappointed in a trade return for ADA. I suppose we sign him for 3 yrs at 5.25 and see if he can play LD and/or trade him later when Nils is ready. Also if we do trade him for anything but a LD then Smith will have to slide over and now we have 1 NHL LD, we’ll have to look at the Huttons of the world x 2.

 

[Mandar]

That's not the argument and you know it. Nobody* is saying that Tony has lost his spot to Lundkvist. What people are saying is that Lundkvist will likely need a spot on the right side and currently one does not exist. There is a difference and again, you know it. People are also saying that the Rangers have too much money tied on RD's, especially once Fox's contract is up, and that Tony might be the one to go. Guess what, you know this too. Dealing from strength to shore up a weakness? Yup, you know this one too. We can always cherry-pick parts of the argument to either make our side look good or the other foolish, but partial truths make for whole lies. Never change HF indeed.

And just for the record: I hope that the team finds a way to keep Tony but as things stand right now, due to Trouba's contract and NMC, Fox's play, the cap, and the holes in our roster I view Tony as the odd man out.

(*or at least very, very few.)

Bravo!

 

[PuckLuck3043]

I love TDA and the way he plays with an edge. I think though that he will be traded as part of a package that includes our number 22.