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

Tony DeAngelo's Holdout


ThirtyONE

Recommended Posts

The problems he had in the past before he got here you referenced are problems and why he has his label. His “maturity” issues Quinn references is not him abusing an official, using racial slurs or anything like that. The maturity issues from the games that led to his benching was bad discipline during those games. was it not? Maybe I’m wrong but I’m not being lazy. But here you go again taking a conversation past what it needs to be. About the substance of the topic not about what you perceive me to be. Maturity issues can mean a lot of things. And they like the offer that he’s been made is based upon assumption. The offer has been reported as $875m by Larry Brooks. The maturity issues from that article does not say what they are. Kreider, Miller, Hayes, chytil, etc have all seen street cloths in recent years due to maturity issues of some sort. They do t have his history of course but deangelo is still a young kid trying to learn what it takes to be a pro. Maturity issues could be as simple as that

 

Quinn came out and said he benched him for saying something after a goal against. He made a comment during camp last season, too.

Other than that, I dont recall serious "problems". Its essentially a clash in personalities. Like Buch getting benched for having a look on his face during practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

“poor tony”? Not at all what I’m saying. He has a point. Players have contract disagreements all the time. Its pathetic how every single conversation has to take these childish turns. The rangers have the leverage and their reasons which are valid. DeAngelo has his valid reasons too. It’s a negotiation. This is not an example of his prior off ice issues. It’s a fucking contract disagreement about money. Disagreeing with his stance has some validity. So why not keep it there instead of trolling?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no his prior problems shouldn?t effect him making $1.25m a year for 1 season. The rangers demanded him be in the trade when they got him. They wanted to give him another chance. For the most part he?s been a solid citizen here outside of a comment here and there. Young players get benched all the time for all hosts of reasons. He has a past no doubt. The rangers though gave him a clean slate when he came here. Now you want to hold his past in other organizations against him? I get it if you?re talking long term or big money. But you?re talking 1 year less than $2m. Its a joke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no his prior problems shouldn?t effect him making $1.25m a year for 1 season. The rangers demanded him be in the trade when they got him. They wanted to give him another chance. For the most part he?s been a solid citizen here outside of a comment here and there. Young players get benched all the time for all hosts of reasons. He has a past no doubt. The rangers though gave him a clean slate when he came here. Now you want to hold his past in other organizations against him? I get it if you?re talking long term or big money. But you?re talking 1 year less than $2m. Its a joke

 

What in this post is factual?

 

Where's the link to the Rangers "demanding" him?

 

His prior problems are clearly carrying over here.

 

He's had no issues here... Except the ones he got benched for.

 

You're going in circles. That's the joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in this post is factual?

 

Where's the link to the Rangers "demanding" him?

 

His prior problems are clearly carrying over here.

 

He's had no issues here... Except the ones he got benched for.

 

You're going in circles. That's the joke.

It was widely reported they insisted on him just like they did Hajek in the trade with Tampa. I’m not going back and looking it up because quite frankly you aren’t worth the time. You would argue the sky being blue.

 

“Problems clearly carrying over,” is that fact? According to you nobody knows what they offered or why. Yet “clearly” it’s fact that his past is the problem here.

 

I’m not going to circles. My post has not changed. Yours has from No leverage, not needed or missed, off ice problems, to finally when you clearly don’t have a valid point, tell him it will be ok sport. You antics are clear and old. Somehow you’re allowed to daily spew you’re disrespect and your arrogance (kind of like deangelo) towards numerous people on this board.

 

On blue shirt banter right this minute there is an article written by joe Fortunato that is basically saying exactly what I’ve been for days here. It’s not some crazy opinion that I’m offering. Both parties have a point here. The only negativity is directed at the player.

 

Yes he’s been benched. Him, Staal, skeij, buch, hank, and ever player not named mikka or Jesper has been benched last year. He’s a you a player, a defenseman no less. They get benched all the time. You don’t know the facts about why he was benched. Two games in February due to maturity issues. What the hell does that mean. Buch had the same problem yet he just got $3m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was widely reported they insisted on him just like they did Hajek in the trade with Tampa.
So it shouldn't be an issue to find the links? Because I looked, and nothing said they "insisted on him". What I found is Yotes insisting on Raanta, and the Rangers acknowledging the character issues that you seem to gloss over.

 

I’m not going back and looking it up because quite frankly you aren’t worth the time. You would argue the sky being blue.
"But here you go again taking a conversation past what it needs to be. About the substance of the topic not about what you perceive me to be."

 

“Problems clearly carrying over,” is that fact? According to you nobody knows what they offered or why. Yet “clearly” it’s fact that his past is the problem here.
His past isn't the problem. It's his current maturity issues. Like the coach is fucking telling us why ADA got benched and you're like "No one knows, young guys get benched for many reasons." It's deliberately obtuse.

 

I’m not going to circles. My post has not changed. Yours has from No leverage, not needed or missed, off ice problems, to finally when you clearly don’t have a valid point, tell him it will be ok sport.
OK, you have one point. ADA is "allowed" to hold out. You're right, I don't have a valid point. I have more than one. And I've backed them up. Something you fail to ever do.

 

You antics are clear and old. Somehow you’re allowed to daily spew you’re disrespect and your arrogance (kind of like deangelo) towards numerous people on this board.
But here you go again taking a conversation past what it needs to be. About the substance of the topic not about what you perceive me to be.

 

But keep taking shots. You're clearly annoyed because you're kind of getting owned, not by me, but just by the actual links that I'm posting to support my argument...Something you can't do because there's no facts supporting yours.

 

On blue shirt banter right this minute there is an article written by joe Fortunato that is basically saying exactly what I’ve been for days here. It’s not some crazy opinion that I’m offering. Both parties have a point here. The only negativity is directed at the player.
Could not care less what a blogger thinks.

 

Yes he’s been benched. Him, Staal, skeij, buch, hank, and ever player not named mikka or Jesper has been benched last year. He’s a you a player, a defenseman no less. They get benched all the time. You don’t know the facts about why he was benched. Two games in February due to maturity issues. What the hell does that mean. Buch had the same problem yet he just got $3m.

I actually do know the facts, MATURITY ISSUES. Someting "Staal, skeij, buch, hank, and ever player not named mikka or Jesper" are not guilty of.

 

Buch got paid because he's a better player. Something that, you know, matters when you're negotiating a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...in russia

 

Actually I was thinking that he may get traded for...

Then go to Oakland, where he'll get frostbite on his feet....

Then have a problem with the regulation jock he's wearing...and lose his appeal to wear it....TWICE!

Then his contract will get voided out for being an ass hat, and sign with New England to play with Tom Brady.

 

 

Oh wait, I think I've I seen this somewhere before??? :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...