Gallant on Tom Wilson Situation

Gallant: Drama with Capitals' Wilson won't 'overtake' Rangers

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2194061

With the direction the roster has taken, I think the drama already HAS taken over the Rangers. Hopefully it's some entertaining and fulfilling shit. If the next 4 or so years are all about going after Tom Wilson and the Caps. Ehh. I guess I'll watch.

I watched (and complained) when they played like soft bitches with no direction. Now I'll watch a bunch of 3rd and 4th line role players take aggressive penalties WITH direction.

I know it doesn't seem like I'm into it. But I am. It's a change.

Gallant: Drama with Capitals' Wilson won't 'overtake' Rangers

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2194061

 

With the direction the roster has taken, I think the drama already HAS taken over the Rangers. Hopefully it's some entertaining and fulfilling shit. If the next 4 or so years are all about going after Tom Wilson and the Caps. Ehh. I guess I'll watch.

 

I watched (and complained) when they played like soft bitches with no direction. Now I'll watch a bunch of 3rd and 4th line role players take aggressive penalties WITH direction.

 

I know it doesn't seem like I'm into it. But I am. It's a change.

This is just simply a false narrative that I feel the need to call out every time it's mentioned. You can't have a team that has 12 "skill" forwards in every position doing the same thing. That's simply not how hockey works - as has been proven by the last two seasons. Good teams have balance. They didn't sign the Hanson Brothers, they brought in hockey players who bring something different to the team other than fancy, cross ice passing. Goodrow was on the ice for two Stanley Cup clinching shifts. Sammy Blais was on the 1st line of a Stanley Cup winning team. Like, can we stop pretending Drury blew the team up because of Tom Wilson. It's just not reality.

This is just simply a false narrative that I feel the need to call out every time it's mentioned. You can't have a team that has 12 "skill" forwards in every position doing the same thing. That's simply not how hockey works - as has been proven by the last two seasons. Good teams have balance. They didn't sign the Hanson Brothers, they brought in hockey players who bring something different to the team other than fancy, cross ice passing. Goodrow was on the ice for two Stanley Cup clinching shifts. Sammy Blais was on the 1st line of a Stanley Cup winning team. Like, can we stop pretending Drury blew the team up because of Tom Wilson. It's just not reality.

I kind of agree and was on board with you all summer... Until Reaves. To not only to trade for, but extend him... Means there's intent to play him. And that, to me, means we'll see some pretty bad players like him and Tinordi play a lot of divisional games against Isles, Philly etc and games against teams we'll be battling for a playoff spot with, Caps and Carolina.

But what does that matter? You're assuming Reaves being in the lineup makes us worse somehow. He was traded on the condition that we would extend him - which to me means there's a lot of respect for the guy in the league. The rangers have been trying to get him for 3+ years. He played 10 minutes a night for Gallant. He had 20 points the year they went to the cup. It's possible he's not the same player he was 2 years ago, but Gallant has said he's not putting rookies/young guys on the 4th line, so if he's taking anyone's spot its Greg McKegg's.

But what does that matter? You're assuming Reaves being in the lineup makes us worse somehow. He was traded on the condition that we would extend him - which to me means there's a lot of respect for the guy in the league. The rangers have been trying to get him for 3+ years. He played 10 minutes a night for Gallant. He had 20 points the year they went to the cup. It's possible he's not the same player he was 2 years ago, but Gallant has said he's not putting rookies/young guys on the 4th line, so if he's taking anyone's spot its Greg McKegg's.

The year they went to the cup he was traded midway through the year to Vegas and he had 2 points in 21 games for them in the regular season and another 2 in the playoffs not playing every game. Plus, he did nothing to stop Tom Wilson from cheap shotting Marchessault in game 1 or really doing anything all finals long. I think the only fight he had all season with Vegas was in the cup clinching loss.

I don’t know, I’m always going to be weary to bring in a puncher at 35+ and then also commit to him for a full season and longer. I guess in a positive note, his 20 point season was more recent than the cup year but we all know he’s not brought in as a guy playing big minutes.

I spent the last couple of years complaining that they were as soft as baby shit so I can't say anything bad about having Reeves playing over a guy like McKegg for example. Game in and game out were the bug on the windshield from the top of the lineup to the bottom. If we threw a meaningful hit I felt like it was worthy of a standing ovation.

Part of my view is that I don't see Goodrow or Blais as guys who are going to force the other team to keep their heads up. Gritty players, sure no doubt. Are they punishing guys who go out there and look to run guys over every chance they get, nope not imo. I trust Gallant and the way he will use Reeves, if you don't than I think the problem really is with Gallant not the player. As for Tinordi I think barring injuries he's a spare part on most nights. I look forward to not being the bug this season game in and game out.

This is just simply a false narrative that I feel the need to call out every time it's mentioned. You can't have a team that has 12 "skill" forwards in every position doing the same thing. That's simply not how hockey works - as has been proven by the last two seasons. Good teams have balance. They didn't sign the Hanson Brothers, they brought in hockey players who bring something different to the team other than fancy, cross ice passing. Goodrow was on the ice for two Stanley Cup clinching shifts. Sammy Blais was on the 1st line of a Stanley Cup winning team. Like, can we stop pretending Drury blew the team up because of Tom Wilson. It's just not reality.

That's fine. Disagree all you want. I think they are phasing out young skill guys for the purpose of matching up with 2 teams. I honestly don't care what Goodrow did in Tampa. Trying to mimic his role there and squeezing it onto our roster in a more prominent role, isn't going to work in my opinion. It rarely ever does. Anywhere.

Sammy Blais played a shift or 2 on the top line on a cup winner. So? Are we going to collect guys who played a few shifts on first lines from everyone? Hmmm. Well I guess so. We have Goodrow and Blais.

I mean. How far does this thinking go? Do we need a goalie that played a in a Stanley Cup final? D- man? Is this some proven method?

While I'll agree all day long that you can't have 12 skill guys as forwards, but you DO need skill that plays with grit. Or grit that can contribute on offense.. You have to have that mix in your top 6.. The Rangers don't. They have grit and penalty taking machines that are slotting up to 3rd line duties and removing skill like Chytil, or potential of other players.

They brought in an old has been goon and even extended him, then another goon to play D. They totally did this due to Wilson.

If the goal is to become harder to play against, you tear it down and you make a huge play for a Tkachuk or a game changing power forward. You don't add a pest that can PK and the guy who has a rivalry with Tom Wilson..

While these ARE pieces that the team was missing, I don't see how much this will add to the win column. I absolutely trust in Gallant though. So, I hope these pieces are used properly and their roles don't necessarily define the team but add to it. If that makes any sense...

But what does that matter? You're assuming Reaves being in the lineup makes us worse somehow. He was traded on the condition that we would extend him - which to me means there's a lot of respect for the guy in the league. The rangers have been trying to get him for 3+ years. He played 10 minutes a night for Gallant. He had 20 points the year they went to the cup. It's possible he's not the same player he was 2 years ago, but Gallant has said he's not putting rookies/young guys on the 4th line, so if he's taking anyone's spot its Greg McKegg's.

If you look at last years roster, the Rangers had absolutely no one in that room that had played any type of meaningful hockey in the playoffs or been a part of a team with a winning culture outside of Kreider (early NYR years) and Trouba (WPG days). They had a few guys who had some playoff experience in Panarin, Smith, etc. But outside of that, that locker room was absolutely empty when it came to any type of winning experience in the NHL.

I’m not saying that you need to add players with Cup wins like you’re collecting candy. But for a young team to have no one in that locker room to look at and say, “this guys name is on the Cup” or “this guy knows what it takes to win” or have guys who have been there and seen what it’s like to come up just short is important. There was no direction there. And when locker room issues bubbled up, or issues with the makeup of the team were voiced loud enough that it was heard in that locker room, there was no one there to help lead them out of that hole. You had a young coach, a young locker room and no experience. Now, we have a veteran coach and have added veterans with resumes to the locker room.

In adding who they’ve added, they’ve added guys who fill holes but also have performed those roles on teams that have won. More than anything though, I think it will help the locker room. These are kids that will finally have some guys go out, bang bodies, intimidate players on the other team for them, give them a little more room to operate, give knowledge, etc.

Meh. Mehh.

2020- 21 Rangers with playoff experience

Bitetto- 14 games

Buchnevich- 8 games

Chytil- 3 (19/20 play in is deemed playoffs by hockey reference)

DeAngelo- 3

Di Giuseppe- 3

Fox- 3

Gauthier- 3

Howden- 3

Johnson- 30

Kakko- 3

Kreider- 80

Lemieux- 1

Lindgren- 3

Panarin- 30

Smith- 42

Strome- 18

Trouba- 30

Zibanejad- 31

It's not like none of the roster had been to the playoffs.

It does make us worse. He scored 20 points the year they went to the Cup and last year was a scratch in the playoffs.

His 20 points were the year after their cup final appearance. Just posting for book keeping, not any inference from it.

Meh. Mehh.

 

2020- 21 Rangers with playoff experience

 

Bitetto- 14 games

Buchnevich- 8 games

Chytil- 3 (19/20 play in is deemed playoffs by hockey reference)

DeAngelo- 3

Di Giuseppe- 3

Fox- 3

Gauthier- 3

Howden- 3

Johnson- 30

Kakko- 3

Kreider- 80

Lemieux- 1

Lindgren- 3

Panarin- 30

Smith- 42

Strome- 18

Trouba- 30

Zibanejad- 31

 

It's not like none of the roster had been to the playoffs.

And now do wins.

Its not about participating in the playoffs, its about knowing what it takes to win. Have anyone besides Kreids been to a conference final?

Meh. Mehh.

 

2020- 21 Rangers with playoff experience

 

Bitetto- 14 games

Buchnevich- 8 games

Chytil- 3 (19/20 play in is deemed playoffs by hockey reference)

DeAngelo- 3

Di Giuseppe- 3

Fox- 3

Gauthier- 3

Howden- 3

Johnson- 30

Kakko- 3

Kreider- 80

Lemieux- 1

Lindgren- 3

Panarin- 30

Smith- 42

Strome- 18

Trouba- 30

Zibanejad- 31

 

It's not like none of the roster had been to the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I think this makes the opposite point than the one you're going for here. If that much of the team's playoff experience is based on being handily skunked by Carolina in a play-in series, it exposes just how grossly lacking they were in playoff chops - particularly compared to the Islanders, Bruins, and Pens.

 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

The flip side to that is young teams often times get blasted their first trip to the playoffs. It's usually a necessary step to learn first hand how much the game changes that time of year. It was a learning experience for sure for those guys.

It does make us worse. He scored 20 points the year they went to the Cup and last year was a scratch in the playoffs.

Reaves does three things exceptionally well - hit, fight, and intimidate. He's a reasonable penalty killer and a a good enough forechecker/board battler.

There are games where that will mean everything, and games where that will mean nothing. His value is entirely situational, and I think that makes him really, really hard to get a read on when we're talking about making us better or worse.

Apples to apples - I think if we're looking at Reaves as "replacing DiGiuseppe" - it's fair to say we're better.

The flip side to that is young teams often times get blasted their first trip to the playoffs. It's usually a necessary step to learn first hand how much the game changes that time of year. It was a learning experience for sure for those guys.

It's true, but I think what we saw in that series and the "nut up or shut up" games we had last season, we felt the lack of a player stepping up and getting that "let's fucking go" mentality in place. And that's disappointing - it's disappointing to see that Kreider didn't get that moving. I know Trouba was hurt for those games, Panarin didn't do it, Zib didn't do it, Strome didn't do it - and maybe worse, Kakko, Laf, Chytil, Fox - they didn't either.

Reaves does three things exceptionally well - hit, fight, and intimidate. He's a reasonable penalty killer and a a good enough forechecker/board battler.

 

There are games where that will mean everything, and games where that will mean nothing. His value is entirely situational, and I think that makes him really, really hard to get a read on when we're talking about making us better or worse.

 

Apples to apples - I think if we're looking at Reaves as "replacing DiGiuseppe" - it's fair to say we're better.

I don't know if it was mentioned earlier, but he should add a bit of locker room presence as well. His leadership will be a welcome addition to a team I think requires it a bit more.

I admit it, I wanted Reaves here. Is it overkill? Maybe, but I don't think he's going to hurt the team, or our chances. I kinda like having a big watchdog in the front yard. I don't think anyone's going to "stop" what Tom Wilson does. That's who he is and who he's been all along, and like someone said before he's a unicorn.

But just knowing you're going to have to face the music for taking liberties with this team this season can, and might deter him and others....even if it's just a little bit.

I can see him becoming a fan favorite very quickly this season; Our opening game is against guess who? ...and I called it already....I think it's gonna happen right off the opening face off!

Reaves does three things exceptionally well - hit, fight, and intimidate. He's a reasonable penalty killer and a a good enough forechecker/board battler.

 

There are games where that will mean everything, and games where that will mean nothing. His value is entirely situational, and I think that makes him really, really hard to get a read on when we're talking about making us better or worse.

 

Apples to apples - I think if we're looking at Reaves as "replacing DiGiuseppe" - it's fair to say we're better.

These types of signing have just never worked out for the Rangers.

The flip side to that is young teams often times get blasted their first trip to the playoffs. It's usually a necessary step to learn first hand how much the game changes that time of year. It was a learning experience for sure for those guys.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Reaves isn't a penalty killer. Never has been.

 

These types of signing have just never worked out for the Rangers.

You're right. I'm confusing him with Goodrow in that respect.

I think this one does have a better shot of working out than the others we've had simply because Reaves does have a long history of doing something other than fighting, but the history doesn't lie - these types of signings generally don't work for us.

Reaves does three things exceptionally well - hit, fight, and intimidate. He's a reasonable penalty killer and a a good enough forechecker/board battler.

 

There are games where that will mean everything, and games where that will mean nothing. His value is entirely situational, and I think that makes him really, really hard to get a read on when we're talking about making us better or worse.

 

Apples to apples - I think if we're looking at Reaves as "replacing DiGiuseppe" - it's fair to say we're better.

Too mnay nights if the skill guys were defensed or thumped, this Rangers had no shot. Looks like Drury has made a serious attempt to make the team more versatile; if the passing game isn't working, they will dump and chase and bang. Would rather have 10 minutes of Reaves than 12-13 minutes of PDG or Howden.

Too mnay nights if the skill guys were defensed or thumped, this Rangers had no shot. Looks like Drury has made a serious attempt to make the team more versatile; if the passing game isn't working, they will dump and chase and bang. Would rather have 10 minutes of Reaves than 12-13 minutes of PDG or Howden.

I like this angle, Bugg. Last season we played a finesse game and had no other alternative style of "game" to resort to when the perimeter play got shut down. Adding the players we did with Blais, Goodrow, and Reaves (I haven't watched a lot of Dryden Hunt, so I'm not sure what he brings) gives us an alternative attack ie: the bump and grind. Hopefully it's contagious and the kids also pick up and learn from these guys' methods and experience.

I gotta admit though, I'm foaming at the mouth for the season to start!!! :thumbs:

You're right. I'm confusing him with Goodrow in that respect.

 

I think this one does have a better shot of working out than the others we've had simply because Reaves does have a long history of doing something other than fighting, but the history doesn't lie - these types of signings generally don't work for us.

What do you mean by "these types of signings"? Now I've only followed this team for roughly 10 years, but I dont remember them signing anyone like Reeves that was a detriment to the team. We've signed shitty 4th liners that had no use/positive upside that got over-used by the coach, but in that case its the coach fault. Reeves has a "use-case" and as long as he's not being over-used Im strugling to see the problem here.

We have a young, inexperienced team that's looking to make the playoffs for the first time in many years and then signing a 34 y/old with loads of experience to play 8-10 minutes is a bad thing?

And if he barely can skate and dont know how to play hockey as some people here have been saying, im sure Gallant will see that. If not he's as bad as AV and Quinn, and then we have a problem way bigger than Reeves.

What do you mean by "these types of signings"? Now I've only followed this team for roughly 10 years, but I dont remember them signing anyone like Reeves that was a detriment to the team. We've signed shitty 4th liners that had no use/positive upside that got over-used by the coach, but in that case its the coach fault. Reeves has a "use-case" and as long as he's not being over-used Im strugling to see the problem here.

 

We have a young, inexperienced team that's looking to make the playoffs for the first time in many years and then signing a 34 y/old with loads of experience to play 8-10 minutes is a bad thing?

 

And if he barely can skate and dont know how to play hockey as some people here have been saying, im sure Gallant will see that. If not he's as bad as AV and Quinn, and then we have a problem way bigger than Reeves.

We've got a long and strong history of overpaying fighters - usually folks who can't really play hockey - and thinking that solves the toughness problem. Reaves kind of fits that bill - I think he's closer to the "right" sort of acquisition (think Dorsett, Carcillo) than the "wrong" (Boogaard, Brashear, Oliwa), but I understand the hesitancy.