Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Should the Rangers Pursue Ryan O?Reilly?


Phil

Recommended Posts

On paper, the idea of the rebuilding Rangers, of all teams, dealing away assets to acquire a 27-year-old seems peculiar. Those assets?draft picks and young prospects ?are the highest form of currency for a team looking to chart a new course to contention. But in reality, it makes plenty of sense for them to entertain the idea, as O?Reilly is a special player who might just be worth the reported asking price that Botterill is seeking.

 

Justifying the cost for a player of O?Reilly?s caliber is as simple as understanding the success he?s found in spite of playing for a collection of lottery teams. Not to mention the regretable 2015 Tim Horton?s incident for which he was charged with, though eventually acquitted of, impaired driving. While it?s fair to criticize him for his behavior, it?s important to make note of his willingness to own, and learn from it. His personal success, especially in both season?s since he was initially charged, speaks volumes about his character and resolve ? both of which could help in leading the Rangers? new direction.

 

Over the last five seasons with the Avalanche and Sabres, he?s thrice eclipsed the 60-point mark and has boasted rising, elite faceoff numbers while performing admirably across shot attempts margins, especially relative to his teammates. While an aggregate Corsi for percentage (CF%) of 49.0 and a 3.0 relative CF% over that span don?t scream possession monster, they do speak volumes about his dependability in the face of disaster. To be able to score as he does and flirt with positive possession metrics is a feat in and of itself given the state of some of the rosters he?s played on.

 

That combination of hustle and scoring is precisely what should endear him to the Rangers, who, under new head coach David Quinn, are vowing to play a more aggressive brand of hockey. That brand is one O?Reilly would not only meet the criteria for but could potentially quarterback, doubling as a team leader.

 

https://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2018/6/8/17438014/could-ryan-oreilly-make-sense-for-new-york-rangers

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

Phil, Buff isn't taking that package and I wouldn't even pay that. I don't consider him the kind of 1C we need to build to a Cup. We don't need a 2C at that price.

 

His leadership had him loudly whining publicly about his contract among other issues and he hasn't won anything. I don't find his game inspiring, especially for his cost. If we had him, I'd be trying to get a big package of younger players for him.

 

Phil, your site could use your attention too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

Phil, Buff isn't taking that package and I wouldn't even pay that. I don't consider him the kind of 1C we need to build to a Cup. We don't need a 2C at that price.

 

His leadership had him loudly whining publicly about his contract among other issues and he hasn't won anything. I don't find his game inspiring, especially for his cost. If we had him, I'd be trying to get a big package of younger players for him.

 

Phil, your site could use your attention too.

 

Oh, could it? Maybe I should stop posting every fucking thread then, since I'm apparently too distracted with, you know, trying to provide sources of discussion.

 

Giac, your humility could use your attention, too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with ROR, as much as I like him, is that he's not enough of an improvement over Hayes, for what he would cost.
Agreed, a rental scorer could work better in the short term, plus we have playmakers, two way guys anyway. Maybe one of Buffalo's promising D prospects, if there are any?

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with ROR, as much as I like him, is that he's not enough of an improvement over Hayes, for what he would cost.

 

Isn't he? They're a little more than a year apart in age, yet Hayes at his absolute best thus far (2016-17) scored 49 points in 76 games (0.64 P/GP). O'Reilly, in a season in which he admitted he "lost his love for the game" had 61 in 81 (0.75 P/GP). If that's what his game looks like when it's off, imagine when it's on.

 

The cost aspect is, of course, the most important. That Hayes, 26, Day offer was just one idea. I'm certainly open to others, but player-for-player, I think you'd agree, O'Reilly is a superior player in every facet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't he? They're a little more than a year apart in age, yet Hayes at his absolute best thus far (2016-17) scored 49 points in 76 games (0.64 P/GP). O'Reilly, in a season in which he admitted he "lost his love for the game" had 61 in 81 (0.75 P/GP). If that's what his game looks like when it's off, imagine when it's on.

 

The cost aspect is, of course, the most important. That Hayes, 26, Day offer was just one idea. I'm certainly open to others, but player-for-player, I think you'd agree, O'Reilly is a superior player in every facet.

 

64?

 

O'Reilly looked like a shell of himself last season. He was invisible. 10 ES points. -23 when his best asset is his defensive game. No thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

64?

 

O'Reilly looked like a shell of himself last season. He was invisible. 10 ES points. -23 when his best asset is his defensive game. No thanks.

 

Again, consider the state of the team he played on. It has to be a massive proviso in any honest discussion of his merits as a player.

 

Also, he had 34 ES points. Second to Eichel's 42.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not into it. 1 for 1, I'd swap Hayes for him or add some contract to sweeten the deal for the Rangers.

 

For some reason where ever this guy goes he puts up good numbers but his teams are dog shit bottom feeders, despite having some serious fire power.

 

I don't trade away any unseen prospects AND a 1st for a guy that can't be apart of a winning team. Maybe he's the problem. Hayes/Namestnikov and Belesky straight up and I'll be on board. If not Belesky then Staal or Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He’s a good player, but he’s not worth the contract, the headache or the cost to acquire him. Personally, I don’t think he makes the team he’s on better.

 

Not that I'm expecting this to go over well, but analytics say otherwise. His relative possession metrics are insane. Compared to Hayes, specifically, he absolutely dwarfs him:

 

ROR-Hayes-Dashboard2.png?raw=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not into it. 1 for 1, I'd swap Hayes for him or add some contract to sweeten the deal for the Rangers.

 

For some reason where ever this guy goes he puts up good numbers but his teams are dog shit bottom feeders, despite having some serious fire power.

 

I don't trade away any unseen prospects AND a 1st for a guy that can't be apart of a winning team. Maybe he's the problem. Hayes/Namestnikov and Belesky straight up and I'll be on board. If not Belesky then Staal or Smith.

 

Wut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another overpaid, mediocre player.... welcome home.

 

Playing for two awful teams over the last five years, among all active centers who’ve played in at least 300 games, his 295 points in 386 games is tied for 12th in the entire league. Those directly around him: Bergeron (301), Toews (302), Staal (295), and Zetterberg (288).

 

Using the same 300 game limits, he's tied for 17th in even strength points, too.

 

How can this possibly be classified as mediocre?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I'm expecting this to go over well, but analytics say otherwise. His relative possession metrics are insane. Compared to Hayes, specifically, he absolutely dwarfs him:

 

ROR-Hayes-Dashboard2.png?raw=1

What am I looking at here? The stats seem all wrong...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wut.

 

He's supposed to be a leader? His teams underachieve and he lost interest in the game because of it. Maybe he's a poor locker room guy. Maybe his team mates don't respect him. Maybe he's just a puck hog and puts up ok numbers getting top line ice time? I don't know. But so far that's two young teams surrounded by top tier draft picks, he's been on as a main piece, and the results are not good. Terrible is the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I looking at here? The stats seem all wrong...?

 

Doh! I think I plugged the values in wrong. I'll do it again tonight and post another update. His relative numbers are good, though. Positve relative CF every year of his career but his rookie season. Positive relative FF every year of his career, too. And he's been used with heavy defensive zone starts the last four years, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing for two awful teams over the last five years, among all active centers who’ve played in at least 300 games, his 295 points in 386 games is tied for 12th in the entire league. Those directly around him: Bergeron (301), Toews (302), Staal (295), and Zetterberg (288).

 

Using the same 300 game limits, he's tied for 17th in even strength points, too.

 

How can this possibly be classified as mediocre?

 

Guess what? Rangers would be awful team #3. He's a complimentary piece on a good team. He's not someone to build around. I've watched him play a decent amount -- kind of waiting for all that early hype to finally pay off and I just don't think he's that good. He's fine, I guess, but I'm not sure how we get him or how he helps the issue of raw talent. We have "hard workers" we need skilled hockey players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doh! I think I plugged the values in wrong. I'll do it again tonight and post another update. His relative numbers are good, though. Positve relative CF every year of his career but his rookie season. Positive relative FF every year of his career, too. And he's been used with heavy defensive zone starts the last four years, too.
Yea I figured. When I saw the charts I was like wut...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess what? Rangers would be awful team #3. He's a complimentary piece on a good team. He's not someone to build around. I've watched him play a decent amount -- kind of waiting for all that early hype to finally pay off and I just don't think he's that good. He's fine, I guess, but I'm not sure how we get him or how he helps the issue of raw talent. We have "hard workers" we need skilled hockey players.

 

That's fine. You disagree. That's the point of the forum. It's why I made the thread. I didn't assume everyone would just agree.

 

I clearly think higher of him than you. I'm OK with us not seeing eye-to-eye on that. But I'm definitely not going to let you slide by calling him mediocre or complimentary when he's sharing connective tissue with other first-line centers, and has produced as one himself despite playing for awful clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...