Fatfrancesa

Poor Panarin. No one close to his level on this team

 

Seriously? He decided to come here knowing full well what they have

Hajek looks overwhelmed.

Lemieux

Hoping lemieux can surprise and score 20-25 goals while being a huge pain in the ass to play against. Those types are rare. Other than that hoping for Someone to step up in the number 2 center hole. Also praying panarin and trouba live up to the hype.

It was always beyond wishful thinking just penciling in so many rookies onto the roster, especially so many that are still eligible for the world juniors. It’s understandable to be disappointed but it’s expected that every player develops at different speeds. Some never do.

you'd love that I bet

 

Lemieux scores 20

 

Not really.

Panarin under 65 points

I hope this is the change that jd is bringing to the organization. Years past chytil made the team because of the poor depth and the rangers didn’t have the big picture as it’s focus. Every move this team makes should be about development of these young players. Should have been that way the last two years but better late than never.

 

Is it a red flag though? I can see it both ways. He certainly hasn’t gotten better in any real meaningful way but he’s 20 and it’s certainly not a lost cause. I do think his ceiling might have been overrated to begin with. I view him fully developed as a voracek best case and worst case anisomov type.

If only Namestnikov was fedotenko. Very underrated player

Matt Duchesne would have been nice at that price.

 

Didn’t love that either but it did at least make sense being he played a position of need.

As was everyone else saying he had no leverage and should sign the QO.

 

The rangers got a great deal. He’s worth more than he’s being paid. I agreed he had no leverage. I also understood his stance. He tried to get more and ended the holdout before it blew up his season. I don’t see how this should matter being that he wouldn’t be missed.

So I guess brooks was right.

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.

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

“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?

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

In what way has he been a problem here? Most of his problems occurred when he was a teen. Lots of young players get benched here and there. It is an assumption that he was benched last year for off ice issues not fact. We aren’t talking about anything more than a 1 year deal here for under $2m if he’s asking for more than that he’s clueless and hurting himself. That is not him being a locker room problem though. If the rangers don’t view him as a player worth $1.25-1.5m then why not just trade him? There is a middle ground here and both parties can have a valid point. This is one of those cases. Why people want to make it about him being a problem or worthless is just not true based on what’s been reported.

It’s not. Him having no leverage is the problem. That said a reasonable offer of $1.25-$1.5 should get it done. It’s fair money for the rangers and DeAngelo would still be getting less than he’s worth but with his leverage it’s reasonable to know you’re not getting full value. Any reasonable person would view paying DeAngelo $1.25m as good value. Some will say it’s only $400k why hold out for so little? It’s not little when the starting point is $875k

In today’s nhl what does it even mean to be tough to play against? Hits are as rare as a fight as one usually leads to the other.

You know Mckegg is going to find a way to play 55 games for this team.

 

He should

you have no idea what the Rangers have offered him to this point beyond the qualifying offer. How do you know they haven't offered him 2 million?

 

 

Only going on what is being reported that all indications they are offering him the same as lemieux. But fine I don’t know for sure and neither do you. Doesn’t matter though because the larger point here is that the rangers do need him. He shouldn’t just shut up and play because the fans don’t think he has right to ask for more. If he does holdout it certainly hurts him but I’m also arguing it hurts the team which some on here state makes difference. That is my larger point. I’m supposedly the negative one here and all you have issue because I think a current ranger is being undervalued and does have at least some kind of ground on to ask for more. Of course if he’s being offered $2m a year then yes he’s totally Dillusional

You like using this word describing other's points of view when it doesn't fit into line with yours.

 

Do I? That’s great. How about addressing my post instead of your issue with me? Are fans not speaking out negatively here about him?

Also he’s not fighting the cba. He’s fighting for more money which is within his rights afforded him by the cba. It’s within the rangers rights to tell him to fuck off.

I’m not disparaging fox at all. I’m just taking the view of DeAngelo and trying to view it in his shoes. I know how awful. I totally understand people’s thought that he’s hurting himself. However him holding out to get more than peanuts is not an example of the problems that come with him. He is more than is $900k defenseman in this league. He’s more than most of what the rangers put out there at defense. I’m sure the rangrers aren’t taking a player looking out for himself as personal or as him being a negative. Same goes with DeAngelo towards the rangers. It’s the business. He will either get his raise or cave. For fans to negatively bash a player taking responsibility for his life is ridiculous. The money you are talking about here isn’t life changing. He will have to work after hockey if his career ended after this year.

 

The guy views himself as being worth more than a qualifying offer or Brendan lemieux. He’s not wrong. He has no leverage so he’s in a tough spot. The rangers could pay him an extra 500-750k and the situation ends. He could say fuck it, it’s just almost double what I make and play a show me year. Problem is the rangers are in worse shape next year in trying to pay him then. It’s a tough situation all around and he’s the guy left without a chair cap wise. The rangers hand out extra money like candy. It’s hard to find an underpaid ranger. Tony DeAngelo is about to become that rare thing. And the fans reaction is to shut the fuck up and play. And this why nobody wants him. It’s ridiculous. It’s a business and he’s got every right to fight for himself as any other player.

His qualifying offer is his the AAV of his last contract (minus bonuses) +5%. So his 2nd contract will be more than his ELC.

 

This sounds like an attempt to further the narrative that the Rangers Paid Panarin too much. The league minimum is $650k, so he would not be playing for the league minimum. He is within his right, but again, the CBA (that was collectively bargained by the union he's a member of) says he has no leverage. If he's got an issue with his position, he should take it up with the NHLPA. The Rangers are within his rights to let him sit there and rot. They just signed 2 RHD who are likely making ADA a third pair guy. Fact is, he needs the Rangers more than the Rangers need him.

 

Trying to equate sports to real life really never works. It's apples to screwdrivers. But that said...If you're doing a job for 3 years and getting a 5% raise, and the company hires someone to do the same job 3 years after you started, chances are they are making more than you are to do that same job. The market inflates more than 5% per year.

 

100% agree. And when that happens, you know what you do? Get a new job. You don't stay home from your job until they give you a raise.

 

I can't believe anyone, or ADA, would classify him as a same case as Marner, Laine, Point, etc.

 

It actually can. And it likely will.

 

Again, he should take it up with the CBA, collectively bargained by his union, not the Rangers. The Rangers gave him a qualifying offer and that's all they are obligated to do.

 

Holding out only makes him look bad. Kevin LeBanc accomplished way more on a better team and just signed for $1 million on a "show me deal"...If he can do it, so can ADA.

 

Actually you are trying to bring panarin into every conversation. This has nothing to do with him other that he like trouba, Staal, hank, Namestnikov, strome, skeij, etc are all overpaid. You bring him into the equation and then blame me for talking about him. Nothing I wrote or for that matter thought when I wrote my post referred to panarin.