Waived: Dylan McIlrath (UPDATE: Cleared)

Status
Not open for further replies.

silverfish

got perma'd
Jun 24, 2008
34,644
4,353
under the bridge
Number 2 on your list there is subjective and not fact. He was good for a short stint last year. He was mediocre for another short stint.

This is also subjective.

he was good for an extended stint..got benched for no reason..and then got put in as a right winger on the 4th line...got benched again...and got put in with the corpse of Dan Boyle playing the left side for the first time in his 900 year career, and shockingly they sucked as a pair.

thats a more accurate depiction of what really happened.

This is objective.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,816
10,387
Charlotte, NC
he was good for an extended stint..got benched for no reason..and then got put in as a right winger on the 4th line...got benched again...and got put in with the corpse of Dan Boyle playing the left side for the first time in his 900 year career, and shockingly they sucked as a pair.

thats a more accurate depiction of what really happened.

What extended stint? This is how his season went last year:

Dressed 4 of 22 games to start the season (Start-Nov 25)
Dressed 13 of 14 games (Nov 27-Dec 22)
Dressed 4 of 16 games (Dec 28-Feb 6)
Dressed 10 of 14 games (Feb 8-Mar 6)
Scratched 13 games (Mar 8-Apr 4)
Dressed 3 games to end the season

The only two consistent periods of him playing didn't even last a quarter of the season. There were no extended stints.
 

Inferno

Registered User
Nov 27, 2005
29,681
7,949
Atlanta, GA
Id also add that he was not good this year...almost all of us who want McIlrath to play will say that. Hes struggled...for sure.

But saying McIlrath was a great defenseman or a top pairing defenseman or anything like that, was NEVER what we were saying. What we were saying is that hes a better option than Dan Girardi.

THats literally it.

Dan is slower than Dylan, worse on the boards, and a worse passers...theres only a handful of things DG does better....he stays on his feet better, and he blocks shots better...thats it.

Id say DM is better in every other category. better shot, better first pass, better on the boards, more intimidating, better at his gaps (yes...hes below average here...but still better than DG)...

i dont want DM playing 25 mins a game...i want DM playing 10-12 mins a game in 3rd pairing situations with sheltered matchups.

thats what we should be giving to DG now, but DM is just flat out better.

Thats my entire argument.

Thats it.

Not that hes a good or great defenseman...just that hes a better 3rd pairing defenseman than the current guy.
 

McRanger

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 20, 2005
4,889
2,250
Number 2 on your list there is subjective and not fact. He was good for a short stint last year. He was mediocre for another short stint.

Not really. Statistically he played well. Using traditional and/or fancy stats.
 

haohmaru

boomshakalaka
Aug 26, 2009
16,513
10,717
Fleming Island, Fl
I've held my tongue on this issue since he was both waived and subsequently not claimed.

sad day really. wasted opportunity to have an impact player turned into a wasted pick. who here wouldn't love to trade mcilrath for cam fowler right now ? ill wait for show of hands.....

"fowler sucks" bah blah bah...... amirite ?

while many here are being handed their menus and are deciding, as we speak, how they would like their crow prepared (smoked with apple and hickory wood with a nice spicy rub is my recommendation), i continue to chuckle at all those who continue to cling to the sinking ship.

like somehow its a good thing he was waived and not claimed ?

thats like saying, i couldn't sell my junky car so now i can keep it and keep making the payments on something that doesnt work and i dont need anymore. darn am i happy no one bought it ! huh ?

when you are waived and not claimed by 30 other gm's thats bad. in fact, it means you arent an nhl player. period.

from someone (many would say the leader of the pack) who was never a fan from the get go, i feel like draft decisions like this one put the organization back on its heels. gordie got some splainin to do.

on the flip side, for every mcilrath there are draft opportunities like lundqvist, buchnevich, shestyorkin and robin kovacs that you can grab from lower rounds and turn out to be steals and certainly the kevin spicolis and jimmy veseys that you can sign for free help alot as well.

for all the long term skeptics from day one on the whole mcilrath draft decision- BRB and bluenote both come to mind plus a very few others i cant remember, it wasnt that hard to call this one. the fact that it came to this, atleast for me, is but confirmation of what I've known from day one.

dylan mcilrath just isnt that good at hockey and the only reason- THE ONLY REASON, he's still here is no one else wanted him.

let that sink in.

It's not that simple - as much as you'd like it to be that simple, it isn't.

When Stralman didn't make the Devils at a PTO, no one wanted him either, right? Columbus told him to take a hike, the Devils told him to get lost, and then the Rangers "took a chance on him". All of which wasn't during the season when caps were set.

Let THAT sink in. The Blue Jackets, who aren't really a perennial powerhouse, had no use for him and didn't qualify him. The Devils gave him a try out and told him to get lost.

Matter of fact, the Leafs, Flames, CBJ's, and Devils all had no use for him. Leafs and Jackets. lol.

How old? 25.

Probably should've hung up his skates and given up according to you.

Yeah, Mcilrath will never be the 2nd coming of Pronger, but he started late, he's still relatively young, and he'll be on an NHL team again.

The "bust" narrative that so many seemingly WANT to define prematurely has stuck with this kid since Tarasenko (who 15 other teams passed on FWIW) decided he did, in fact, want to come to North America.
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,463
11,444
parts unknown
I've held my tongue on this issue since he was both waived and subsequently not claimed.

sad day really. wasted opportunity to have an impact player turned into a wasted pick. who here wouldn't love to trade mcilrath for cam fowler right now ? ill wait for show of hands.....

"fowler sucks" bah blah bah...... amirite ?

while many here are being handed their menus and are deciding, as we speak, how they would like their crow prepared (smoked with apple and hickory wood with a nice spicy rub is my recommendation), i continue to chuckle at all those who continue to cling to the sinking ship.

like somehow its a good thing he was waived and not claimed ?

thats like saying, i couldn't sell my junky car so now i can keep it and keep making the payments on something that doesnt work and i dont need anymore. darn am i happy no one bought it ! huh ?

when you are waived and not claimed by 30 other gm's thats bad. in fact, it means you arent an nhl player. period.

from someone (many would say the leader of the pack) who was never a fan from the get go, i feel like draft decisions like this one put the organization back on its heels. gordie got some splainin to do.

on the flip side, for every mcilrath there are draft opportunities like lundqvist, buchnevich, shestyorkin and robin kovacs that you can grab from lower rounds and turn out to be steals and certainly the kevin spicolis and jimmy veseys that you can sign for free help alot as well.

for all the long term skeptics from day one on the whole mcilrath draft decision- BRB and bluenote both come to mind plus a very few others i cant remember, it wasnt that hard to call this one. the fact that it came to this, atleast for me, is but confirmation of what I've known from day one.

dylan mcilrath just isnt that good at hockey and the only reason- THE ONLY REASON, he's still here is no one else wanted him.

let that sink in.

I'm sure there is something in here that offda hasn't said before, right?

We get it. You've been actively rooting for the guy to fail for years, now.
 

Unpredictable1

Registered User
Jan 27, 2008
4,254
3,242
Alberta
It's not that simple - as much as you'd like it to be that simple, it isn't.

When Stralman didn't make the Devils at a PTO, no one wanted him either, right? Columbus told him to take a hike, the Devils told him to get lost, and then the Rangers "took a chance on him". All of which wasn't during the season when caps were set.

Let THAT sink in. The Blue Jackets, who aren't really a perennial powerhouse, had no use for him and didn't qualify him. The Devils gave him a try out and told him to get lost.

Matter of fact, the Leafs, Flames, CBJ's, and Devils all had no use for him. Leafs and Jackets. lol.

How old? 25.

Probably should've hung up his skates and given up according to you.

Yeah, Mcilrath will never be the 2nd coming of Pronger, but he started late, he's still relatively young, and he'll be on an NHL team again.

The "bust" narrative that so many seemingly WANT to define prematurely has stuck with this kid since Tarasenko (who 15 other teams passed on FWIW) decided he did, in fact, want to come to North America.

This is a great post - but I think those who have had their mind made up on Dylan won't ever change. I hope to see the kid back up on parent squad this season. Playing time right now, even thought in the A, can only help him.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,816
10,387
Charlotte, NC
Anton Stralman had a medical condition that the Rangers figured out and treated. If they hadn't, he wouldn't be an NHL player. Is there a medical condition McIlrath has the Rangers missed? Don't think so. It's an absurd comparison.

https://www.nhl.com/news/stint-with-rangers-gave-lightnings-stralman-a-career/c-741905

Edit: On top of that, I'm really tired of people holding up Stralman in this way when they don't know the basic facts about his story. There are other examples out there if players developing late. MSL didn't break 70 points until he was 27. Just stop using Stralman as that example.
 
Last edited:

haohmaru

boomshakalaka
Aug 26, 2009
16,513
10,717
Fleming Island, Fl
Anton Stralman had a medical condition that the Rangers figured out and treated. If they hadn't, he wouldn't be an NHL player. Is there a medical condition McIlrath has the Rangers missed? Don't think so. It's an absurd comparison.

https://www.nhl.com/news/stint-with-rangers-gave-lightnings-stralman-a-career/c-741905

Edit: On top of that, I'm really tired of people holding up Stralman in this way when they don't know the basic facts about his story. There are other examples out there if players developing late. MSL didn't break 70 points until he was 27. Just stop using Stralman as that example.

I'm fully aware of that story and it's not absurd because the REASON doesn't matter. If it's Stralman's asthma, or that Dylan started hockey and late and had knee injuries, or that St. Louis started scoring at 27 - it's not about the reason. The post itself was rebuking the fact that because other teams passed on Mcilrath on waivers doesn't mean that he can't play at the NHL level now or someday. Late debuts or late career starters: Dustin Penner Age 24. Derek Ryan made his debut this year at age 29. Mike Hoffman, 24. Mark Streit 28. Franzen 25. Hell, I don't think Streit was even drafted until age 26.

Most of these guys were on skates and playing by age 6. Where does that factor on your absurd abacus?

It's not about the reason. It's about the "logic" that because other teams passed on him that he's not going to be an NHL player. We'll see. Like I said, he's not the 2nd coming of Pronger, but he's a guy that probably should be on this roster (Holden) or could be on a host of other rosters. If he never plays another NHL game I'll be happy to eat crow about this.
 

offdacrossbar

misfit fanboy
Jun 25, 2006
15,907
3,455
da cuse
Well now that Nash has been better than he expected so far he needs to spit his venom elsewhere.

he's still is way over paid and needs to be moved for both cap relief and what ever he would return.

no bigger fan than me. im rooting for this clown to play better. play better = gonzo.

younger
faster
cheaper


rememba ??

time to turn the page on the albatross.
 

offdacrossbar

misfit fanboy
Jun 25, 2006
15,907
3,455
da cuse
I'm sure there is something in here that offda hasn't said before, right?

We get it. You've been actively rooting for the guy to fail for years, now.

jon. look, i have never rooted for his failure. ever.

in fact, way back when, i was pretty clear in my belief that he was a solid citizen, a great kid with upside to wear a letter. always said he was a solid choice from a character point. top notch person. my posts all pretty much said that.

BUT, he wasnt in his draft year the 10th pick in that 1st round. he just wasnt. his hockey resume was weak, his improvement as a player the year prior was solid but the holes in his game were obvious. I've been doing hockey for a long time. junior hockey was part of my life years ago. i know talent and i know when kids can skate, and shoot and play. - other than ENVER LISIN of course, whom i was excited to acquire and who turned out to be a big time swing and miss by yours truly.

in 2010, i wanted the russsians- both vlady and ev k. i was right. whatever.

but to say i was rooting for him to fail isnt true. i was pretty confident he wouldn't succeed but theres a big difference there.

and you know it.
 

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Number 2 on your list there is subjective and not fact. He was good for a short stint last year. He was mediocre for another short stint.
This is also subjective.

Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
he was good for an extended stint..got benched for no reason..and then got put in as a right winger on the 4th line...got benched again...and got put in with the corpse of Dan Boyle playing the left side for the first time in his 900 year career, and shockingly they sucked as a pair.

thats a more accurate depiction of what really happened.
This is objective.

Well, I mean, technically speaking, as an English major and a writer, I'm going to have to go ahead and say no, it's not.

Unless of course the meaning of the word "objective" is changing to become its antonym as is happening with "literally" (damn you millennials). :)
 

silverfish

got perma'd
Jun 24, 2008
34,644
4,353
under the bridge
Well, I mean, technically speaking, as an English major and a writer, I'm going to have to go ahead and say no, it's not.

Unless of course the meaning of the word "objective" is changing to become its antonym as is happening with "literally" (damn you millennials). :)

Objective evidence, and not:

of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.

Millenials!

giphy.gif


:)
 

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
Objective evidence, and not:



Millenials!

giphy.gif


:)

Nooo, it's NOT objective.

he was good for an extended stint..got benched for no reason..and then got put in as a right winger on the 4th line...got benched again...and got put in with the corpse of Dan Boyle playing the left side for the first time in his 900 year career, and shockingly they sucked as a pair.

The bolded is all subjective (and, in two cases, ridiculous hyperbole).

Don't mess with me when it comes to words, sonny. :wally:
 

silverfish

got perma'd
Jun 24, 2008
34,644
4,353
under the bridge
Nooo, it's NOT objective.



The bolded is all subjective (and, in two cases, ridiculous hyperbole).

Don't mess with me when it comes to words, sonny. :wally:

Bold 1: Subjective depending on what your definition of "extended stint" is
Bold 2: This is pretty objective. I don't know if there is a good reason that he was benched
Bold 3: I don't know, Dan Boyle is kind of old
Bold 4: See bold 3
Bold 5: They were bad by all measures. I think this is objective, too.

ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?

Oh great, I just got that song stuck in my head. I will now make the rest of you suffer with me.

 

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
Bold 1: Subjective depending on what your definition of "extended stint" is
Bold 2: This is pretty objective. I don't know if there is a good reason that he was benched
Bold 3: I don't know, Dan Boyle is kind of old
Bold 4: See bold 3
Bold 5: They were bad by all measures. I think this is objective, too.

ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?

Oh great, I just got that song stuck in my head. I will now make the rest of you suffer with me.



Nope, I'm not.

If you're using words/phrases like "good" and "no reason" and "corpse" you are by definition being subjective. They're your opinions, period, full stop. Others may disagree, even if you think they're crazy to do so.

Now, had he instead written, "he was benched despite leading the team in CF% during the preceding 6 games" or something like that, THAT would be objective.

DON'T MESS WITH ME WHEN IT COMES TO WORDS, SONNY! :wally: :)
 

silverfish

got perma'd
Jun 24, 2008
34,644
4,353
under the bridge
Nope, I'm not.

If you're using words/phrases like "good" and "no reason" and "corpse" you are by definition being subjective. They're your opinions, period, full stop. Others may disagree, even if you think they're crazy to do so.

Now, had he instead written, "he was benched despite leading the team in CF% during the preceding 6 games" or something like that, THAT would be objective.

DON'T MESS WITH ME WHEN IT COMES TO WORDS, SONNY! :wally: :)

I'm assuming that the foundation of those words is based on facts that I know about, so therefore I am skipping the middle-man and saying they are objective because if it's challenged, I can back it up with evidence.

:P
 

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
I'm assuming that the foundation of those words is based on facts that I know about, so therefore I am skipping the middle-man and saying they are objective because if it's challenged, I can back it up with evidence.

:P

Your interpretation of facts is still subjective.

Also, you can try to apply that excuse to points where Inferno said he "was good" or "they sucked" (note: you'd still be wrong, because I'm certain AV would see things differently - unless you think he purposefully sabotages his own team?) but it still doesn't fly for instances like "no reason" where it is, I would argue, extremely likely that AV did in fact have a reason (even if it was one you didn't like).

Just concede already. :)
 

silverfish

got perma'd
Jun 24, 2008
34,644
4,353
under the bridge
Your interpretation of facts is still subjective.

Also, you can try to apply that excuse to points where Inferno said he "was good" or "they sucked" (note: you'd still be wrong, because I'm certain AV would see things differently - unless you think he purposefully sabotages his own team?) but it still doesn't fly for instances like "no reason" where it is, I would argue, extremely likely that AV did in fact have a reason (even if it was one you didn't like).

Just concede already. :)

For the sake of HF, fine, you win. Just know internally I'm screaming...

 

Trxjw

Retired.
May 8, 2007
28,334
11,204
Land of no calls..
jon. look, i have never rooted for his failure. ever.

in fact, way back when, i was pretty clear in my belief that he was a solid citizen, a great kid with upside to wear a letter. always said he was a solid choice from a character point. top notch person. my posts all pretty much said that.

BUT, he wasnt in his draft year the 10th pick in that 1st round. he just wasnt. his hockey resume was weak, his improvement as a player the year prior was solid but the holes in his game were obvious. I've been doing hockey for a long time. junior hockey was part of my life years ago. i know talent and i know when kids can skate, and shoot and play. - other than ENVER LISIN of course, whom i was excited to acquire and who turned out to be a big time swing and miss by yours truly.

in 2010, i wanted the russsians- both vlady and ev k. i was right. whatever.

but to say i was rooting for him to fail isnt true. i was pretty confident he wouldn't succeed but theres a big difference there.

and you know it.

Virtually everyone on this board wanted Tarasenko, save for maybe a half-dozen or so. The difference was most of us tried to support the guy we actually took, instead of constantly reminding everyone that he was a failure in comparison to guys taken after him and was just a "face puncher."

You're entitled to your opinion, ODC, and you were right about the Russians, but you're painting your McIlrath history with a very rose-colored brush.
 

offdacrossbar

misfit fanboy
Jun 25, 2006
15,907
3,455
da cuse
Virtually everyone on this board wanted Tarasenko, save for maybe a half-dozen or so. The difference was most of us tried to support the guy we actually took, instead of constantly reminding everyone that he was a failure in comparison to guys taken after him and was just a "face puncher."

You're entitled to your opinion, ODC, and you were right about the Russians, but you're painting your McIlrath history with a very rose-colored brush.

not liking the pick and not liking the player are different.

the pick was mistake. period. supporting the player is irrelevant and seems almost naive to even make that an issue. what exactly does supporting the player have to do with anything ?

where was the "support" for john moore ? young guy learning on the job with loads more talent than mcilrath. where was the patience and support for that kid ? he was shredded here, " dumb as rocks" "cant play defense" right ? i mean, he was blended and served as a smoothie. this place was pitchforks and torches for that kid.

and how bout dan boyle at the end ? wheres the "support" now for girardi ? people here have a take and they share it. are you less of a fan if you dont "support" the player ? weird. very weird how that was part of your argument. i support winning. he didn't help that end much.

the hockey player just isnt very good and in the end, or so it seems at this point, it does appear that the rest of the league agrees with me more than the fanboys here.

end of story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->