Sather’s Quest for Deterrence Continues to Punish Rangers

[Tawnos]

It's too bad that deterrence is only a small part of these players presence on the roster. That article might have had a point.

I agree that deterrence doesn't work. In fact, I'm not a fan of fighting in the remotest. Still, I'm not convinced that deterrence was the primary reason for those signings.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

We can debate roles of the enforcer in the game all we want. What I think we can all agree on is enforcer is not the kind of player that shouldn't need to be filled by signing a FA to a multi-year contract.

 

[Thirty One]

It's too bad that deterrence is only a small part of these players presence on the roster. That article might have had a point.

Please elaborate on all the other things they bring.

 

[Tawnos]

Please elaborate on all the other things they bring.

Physicality, which I hope you would admit is important, even if fighting isn't.

Work ethic.

Agitation (our current guy isn't all that great at this)

Locker room presence. I've never been able to put my finger on why most enforcer-types are also well liked people off the ice. Generally they seem to always have a big role in the locker room.

As 4th liners, that's basically enough. I personally would prefer a good skater and a good PKer which is why I liked Prust and Dorsett more than the guys mentioned in the blog.

If I were GM I wouldn't put much emphasis on it. But I can understand why GMs do.

 

[Raspewtin]

Physicality, which I hope you would admit is important, even if fighting isn't.

Work ethic.

Agitation (our current guy isn't all that great at this)

Locker room presence. I've never been able to put my finger on why most enforcer-types are also well liked people off the ice. Generally they seem to always have a big role in the locker room.

As 4th liners, that's basically enough. I personally would prefer a good skater and a good PKer which is why I liked Prust and Dorsett more than the guys mentioned in the blog.

If I were GM I wouldn't put much emphasis on it. But I can understand why GMs do.

The only people Tanner Glass agitates are fans of the team he plays for.

 

[Tawnos]

The only people Tanner Glass agitates are fans of the team he plays for.

He does some. Dorsett and Carcillo were both muuuuch better at it. Rupp, Orr, Boogaard were too. Brashear was ok.

 

[Ail]

Avery was the best agitator and he could fight. Oh how shocking he could play hockey as well. It's as if those three things are not mutually exclusive.

I guess we can settle for **** hockey player, below average agitator and punching bag though.

 

[Ail]

Physicality, which I hope you would admit is important, even if fighting isn't.

Work ethic.

Agitation (our current guy isn't all that great at this)

Locker room presence. I've never been able to put my finger on why most enforcer-types are also well liked people off the ice. Generally they seem to always have a big role in the locker room.

As 4th liners, that's basically enough. I personally would prefer a good skater and a good PKer which is why I liked Prust and Dorsett more than the guys mentioned in the blog.

If I were GM I wouldn't put much emphasis on it. But I can understand why GMs do.

Okay so, you admit you liked two of the guys (as most of us did) who Jared mentioned were the better moves as opposed as to the rest of the useless ding dongs on that list. Why is that?

I think it is because they could actually play hockey on top of bringing all of the other elements you listed.

 

[Tawnos]

Okay so, you admit you liked two of the guys (as most of us did) who Jared mentioned were the better moves as opposed as to the rest of the useless ding dongs on that list. Why is that?

I think it is because they could actually play hockey on top of bringing all of the other elements you listed.

I never didn't admit that. So what's your point? I'd rather have Patrice Bergeron than Derek Stepan too. Some players are better than others. Shocking statement of the year.

Those types of players aren't always available. I've said before that I'm miffed at trading Dorsett only to sign a lesser caliber player in Glass. I think the team management was unhappy with Carcillos antics in the playoffs, which is why they moved on from him.

I wanted to go after Downie myself.

I've defended these guys because they get criticized for not doing things they aren't asked to do. Doesn't mean I like their presence.

 

[Ail]

I've defended these guys because they get criticized for not doing things they aren't asked to do. Doesn't mean I like their presence.

That is my point. You clearly understand these guys are not good hockey players, prefer guys who can play hockey, yet defend these guys.

Tanner Glass et al. gets criticized not because they don't do certain things well, they get criticized because they do not do ANYTHING well. That's the problem. It seems more like you are being contrarian rather than trying to point out why we are expecting too much out of **** players.

 

[Tawnos]

That is my point. You clearly understand these guys are not good hockey players, prefer guys who can play hockey, yet defend these guys.

Tanner Glass et al. gets criticized not because they don't do certain things well, they get criticized because they do not do ANYTHING well. That's the problem. It seems more like you are being contrarian rather than trying to point out why we are expecting too much out of **** players.

That's because you're hellbent on making proclamations about what you think of hockey players while I find it more interesting to figure out what management is thinking. That's not contrarian. It's a different approach to analysis.

I guess I can't do both at the same time. I can't have an opinion of my own while also analyzing the actions of the people whose opinions matter unless my opinion and their actions agree. My bad. I'll stop.

And by the way, I don't think these guys are bad hockey players. Never once said that. They're good at their jobs and their jobs are limited. I prefer players with broader skill sets.

 

[nyr2k2]

This is what I was talking about pages ago. No one wants Glass on the team, and yet we still find ways to fight about him. HE'S A ****ING MENACE!

 

[eco's bones]

Literally no one said it does.


Umm, isn't that Tanner Glass?

But I'm sure that you know the article wasn't about the impact Tanner Glass has had on the team, right? I'll never understand the arrogance of someone to try to poke a hole in an article they haven't read.

Since when did Tanner Glass become Brian Boyle's replacement? Boyle at least most of his career was a center for us. Last year he played some left wing but on the penalty kill and for a key face-off or an extra face-off guy he went back to center. Glass was signed as a 12th-13th forward and not as a center. His role on the team was more to replace/upgrade Carcillo/Dorsett.

 

[Tawnos]

This is what I was talking about pages ago. No one wants Glass on the team, and yet we still find ways to fight about him. HE'S A ****ING MENACE!

I'm not trying to argue about Glass specifically. He's an easy example right now.

 

[eco's bones]

Did you notice a trend here?

Reaves, Ott, LaPierre, Boll, Prout, Martin, Clutterbuck, Desjardins, Prust, Weise, Carter, Thorburn, Peluso, Gazdic, Bordeleau, Talbot, Rinaldo, and Rosehill are all 4th liners and most of them are just ****** hockey players.

Why are we talking about grit? We're talking about fighting. So I don't know why you're bringing up players with like two fighting majors in their career like Erik Johnson, Niklas Kronwall, and Braydon Coburn.

You noticed the trend. What you didn't notice or decided to ignore were guys like Backes, Hamonic, Evander Kane, Iginla and Simmonds or even Foligno, Ladd, Bufyglien and an upcoming kid like Tinordi. And we've only played about half the league so far. There's not nearly as many good players that can fight as there used to be--there still are more than you think.

 

[Tomas Sandstrom 28]

The main issue I have with Glass is that he's not been an effective forechecker so far this season. Carcillo and Dorsett were also players with limited talent, but could dump the puck in and pressure the defense.
Not every player on the roster is going to be a scorer, so for me, I'd like my 4th line wingers to at least be able to do that.

 

[Thirty One]

We can debate roles of the enforcer in the game all we want. What I think we can all agree on is enforcer is not the kind of player that shouldn't need to be filled by signing a FA to a multi-year contract.

Yeah, I am truly fascinated by the fact that sometimes these guys get 3+ years at 1 point something million and sometimes they 1 year for around the league minimum with no discernible reasons why.

Physicality, which I hope you would admit is important, even if fighting isn't.

Well, yes and no. I think physical play has it's advantages, but I think that any advantage gained through physical play can be gained elsewhere.

Work ethic.

All NHLers have work ethic. Work ethic is just something used to explain why bad teams are bad, North Americans are better than Europeans, and why Rick Nash's shooting percentage dips.

Agitation (our current guy isn't all that great at this)

For every Tikkanen or Avery there's about six Dorsetts or Carcillos who put the team down far more often than up in their attempts to agitate.

Locker room presence. I've never been able to put my finger on why most enforcer-types are also well liked people off the ice. Generally they seem to always have a big role in the locker room.

I actually once defended the John Scott trade because of the impact I thought his personality might have on the lockerroom. Then I realized bringing a puppy into the room might have the same effect.

Plus Chicago, a team with a lot more playoff success than the Rangers recently, thought Scott wasn't worth a 5th round pick, so there's that. Presumably, they got a puppy.

Given that there's an abundance of players who can provide all of that available in free agency for cheap, short-term commitments, do you think its wise to continue to give big commitments and use draft picks to search for it?

 

[Ail]

And by the way, I don't think these guys are bad hockey players. Never once said that. They're good at their jobs and their jobs are limited. I prefer players with broader skill sets.

Alrighty then.

 

[Tawnos]

Well, yes and no. I think physical play has it's advantages, but I think that any advantage gained through physical play can be gained elsewhere.

More work needs to be done on fatigue effects. But I think that statement is somewhat absurd.

All NHLers have work ethic. Work ethic is just something used to explain why bad teams are bad, North Americans are better than Europeans, and why Rick Nash's shooting percentage dips.

Yes, but some players work harder than others. Guys who work extra hard help glue the team together.

For every Tikkanen or Avery there's about six Dorsetts or Carcillos who put the team down far more often than up in their attempts to agitate.

The potential risk is giving up a PP goal. The potential reward is getting the other team off their game. Agitation is not about getting the other team to take penalties. It's about distraction.

I actually once defended the John Scott trade because of the impact I thought his personality might have on the lockerroom. Then I realized bringing a puppy into the room might have the same effect.

Plus Chicago, a team with a lot more playoff success than the Rangers recently, thought Scott wasn't worth a 5th round pick, so there's that. Presumably, they got a puppy.

Scott was a rental. Most of those guys aren't. You can keep downplaying the group dynamics aspect of it, but it remains a major factor in building a successful team.

Given that there's an abundance of players who can provide all of that available in free agency for cheap, short-term commitments, do you think its wise to continue to give big commitments and use draft picks to search for it?

The draft picks I could barely care less. None of the signings we've made, including the Glass one, fall into the "big commitment" category.

 

[Thirty One]

More work needs to be done on fatigue effects. But I think that statement is somewhat absurd.

Yes, but some players work harder than others. Guys who work extra hard help glue the team together.

The potential risk is giving up a PP goal. The potential reward is getting the other team off their game. Agitation is not about getting the other team to take penalties. It's about distraction.

Scott was a rental. Most of those guys aren't. You can keep downplaying the group dynamics aspect of it, but it remains a major factor in building a successful team.

The draft picks I could barely care less. None of the signings we've made, including the Glass one, fall into the "big commitment" category.

I guess I can't wrap my head around being willing to piss away draft picks and cap space (any quantity) down such an unproductive avenue.

Can you at least acknowledge that my puppy theory has some merit?

 

[Tawnos]

I guess I can't wrap my head around being willing to piss away draft picks and cap space (any quantity) down such an unproductive avenue.

Can you at least acknowledge that my puppy theory has some merit?

Ha. It's the worst theory I've ever heard from you.

Frankly, the small amount of wasted assets (compared to the overall amount of assets) makes me say "this really isn't a big deal."

 

[Thirty One]

Ha. It's the worst theory I've ever heard from you.

Frankly, the small amount of wasted assets (compared to the overall amount of assets) makes me say "this really isn't a big deal."

Big deal is relative. But it hasn't prevented the Rangers from being one of the most consistently successful teams post-2004 lockout. It's not 17 stabs wounds to the back, it's more like Type II Diabetes.

Hockey games are decided by so little, so I can't find myself brushing off any chronic misuse of assets with a simple YOLO.

 

[alkurtz]

There is a lot to talk about here.

First off, none of us really knows what goes on with a team behind the scenes: on the plane, in the hotel, at team meals, etc. With social media we like to think we do, but we don't. Coaches love Glass and it has to be for the invisible stuff we don't see. I asked my son-in-law, who is a Pens fan, about Glass and he brought up the off ice stuff too. There is something about Glass that makes him repeatedly get jobs even though he is a pretty poor hockey player. Worth the money? Not to me, not to you, but to Sather and AV, apparently yes. I much rather have kept Dorsett, but there must be a reason why we let him go so easily even though he is more skilled than Glass. Off ice, stuff? We'll never know. Off ice, as well as one ice issues, is likely why we got rid of MDZ. JT Miller may have been banished because of off ice stuff too. We can speculate about what goes on behind the scenes, but, seriously, we have no clue. But even with that said, Glass needs to start contributing on the ice or he will be gone.

Next, it seems to me that the role of the 4th line is changing. Though I like the "old idea" of a 4th line: energetic, physical, strong in possesion if not in skill, we seem to be trending to more skilled 4th line players. Guys with a limited skill set, like Glass, Carcillo. or enforcers, are on their way out. Its like in baseball, where middle relief guys are now skilled hard throwers instead of just the least skilled pitchers on the team. Coaches are demanding more from their 4th line. By the way, in the last years of the Original Six, when I first became a fan, there were no 4th lines. Teams dressed only 11 forwards. The extra two were often PK specialists and filled in as needed.

Face it everyone, a victim of the stress on skills will be the end of fighting. In ten to twenty years it will be gone. Enforcers are an endangered species because of limited skills. Couple this with the concussion and head injury issues which are a big deal and getting bigger every year in all sports, the NHL will eventually ban it. They will have no choice. I too grew up with bench clearing brawls, but I've come to hate fighting. As it exists today, it is stupid and pointless. I love physical hockey though.

Not only enforcers will be gone, but limited skill guys like Glass too. We are in the last years where a guy with little else but intangibles only can get contracts. Future 4th line players will be asked to do more and have more skills. The game is evolving. Jesper Fast on the 4th line? That is a glimpse of the future.

Last, someone cited Avery and Tikanen. These guys were not 4th liners, but skilled 3rd liners.

 

[NickyFotiu]

The deterrence argument is more like a straw-man argument that few if any are pushing. I never saw Slats say we signed Glass as a deterrent. Almost every team in the NHL has a guy that may be less skilled than average players but is more physical or fights. We are not they only ones.

 

[Machinehead]

Signing them is one thing, I can live with that.

When he started drafting them is when I got upset. Not mentioning any names.