Ah yes. Thank you for bringing up ******** excuse #2 behind the good ol boys conspiracy theory. The people who defended McIlrath and roasted the coach at incessant levels definitely declared that McIlrath is an NHL-regular defenseman, no? If you don't agree with that, just stop reading because you're lying to yourself.
With that being the reality of the situation, I have to wonder how the experts on hfboards, who also didn't see McIlrath play regularly since February, could continue to make such declarative statements. What did they see that every other general manager in the league didn't see? Right defense is arguably the toughest position to find quality depth in this league. I'm not pushing a strawman that McIlrath was being presented as some superstar around here, but he certainly was being pushed as a no brainer capable NHL regular on the right side. I am sorry, but if that were actually true, several GMs would be clamoring for him on the waiver wire.
You seem to be having issues differentiating between facts and excuses. There is a difference. For example, if I was having difficulty explaining simple concepts to a person and I asked them why that was and they responded "My teachers were lousy", that would be an excuse. It might be true, but its also an excuse. On the other hand if they responded "I'm not particularly bright" that's not exactly an excuse. Its more just the reality of the situation. When I tell people I haven't exercised in a long time because I am lazy and I really just don't want to exercise, people typically don't tell me to stop making excuses.
Keeping that difference in mind, here are some facts.
1) McIlrath played last year in the NHL, and regularly for a few months.
2) McIlrath played well last year.
3) McIlrath hasn't played regularly since February.
4) McIlrath is 24 years old and has only 38 total NHL games played.
5) The Rangers defense has not played very well this season.
6) The Rangers have played D men out of position instead of playing McIlrath.
Keeping those facts in mind, here are my opinions.
1) Its not hard to see why some people, especially those who watched him last season, see him as being able to play in the NHL. It probably has something to do with the fact that he already has played in the NHL. And when he did play, he played well. There is no guarantee that a person can do again something that he has already done before, but the concept isn't exactly novel or controversial.
2) Its also not exactly hard to see why some people think McIlrath might be a better option over what we have now on defense. It probably has something to do with our defense not playing very well. It also has to do with McIlrath being a somewhat unknown commodity. He played well but there's no guarantee he can do so for a longer period of time; just because we are icing some defensemen who are lousy doesn't mean McIlrath will be any better. But trying something new might be better than rolling with something you know doesn't work.
3) It was not a huge surprise a team did not claimed him. He hasn't accomplished much in his career and he hasn't played much for a long time. He's old to still be developing. The fact that he needs to play and his lack of experience makes him a questionable 3rd pair D and a terrible 7th D. Like most tweeners he has more value to his current team than any potential other team.
4) Clearing waivers doesn't disqualify you from being an NHL player.
That's it. Feel free to dispute my facts or views. I numbered them so you can address them directly. Or don't. All I ask is that if you respond, you respond to the argument I am making and not one that comes from someone else or one that exists only in your mind.